NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 08.09.1999 vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service, the order dated 01.08.2001 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected as also the order dated 05.01.2004 dismissing the review petition.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1992. There was no complaint whatsoever till a charge sheet was issued against him on 01.10.1997 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which was served upon him on 03.10.1997 along with the Memorandum and the statement of allegations. 08 charges were levelled against him. All the charges were pertaining to the same incident dated 24.06.1997, whereby the basic allegation against him was with regard to supporting and taking side of one lady Constable Smt. Sarla who too was issued a similar charge sheet pertaining to the same incident along with the other allegations and a total of 13 allegations were levelled against her. A joint enquiry was held for both the delinquents and completed on 29.07.1997. The petitioner was held guilty for all the allegations except for the allegation No.2. He was issued a show cause notice dated 16.08.1999 along with the Enquiry Report. The respondent No.3 while disagreeing with the report of Enquiry Officer on Charge No.2, passed an order dated 08.09.1999, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service holding him guilty of all the allegations levelled against him. Co-delinquent Smt. Sarla was also held guilty for all the 13 allegations but in spite of this, only a penalty of stoppage of 03 Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon her. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur on 24.01.2001. The same too was dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide his order dated 01.08.2001 on account of limitation. The petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1958 before the Governor on 16.10.2003. However, the same too was rejected on 05.01.2004 on account of the Review too not filed within the period of limitation.
(3.) While praying for setting aside the order dated 08.09.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service, the order dated 01.08.2001 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police dismissing the appeal as also the order dated 05.01.2004 dismissing the review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following arguments: (A) The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a nonspeaking order. No reason has been given while passing the order of dismissal. No finding has been recorded on the charges proved against him by the Enquiry Officer. (B) The petitioner was not supplied the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Authority against him and nor the copy of the statement taken by the Enquiry Officer was supplied to him. The statements of the witnesses were given to the petitioner only after passing the dismissal order. Hence, the petitioner could not properly defend himself against the proposed punishment given to him by the Disciplinary Authority. (C) Not only this, the petitioner was not made aware that there shall be a joint Enquiry. The Memorandum of charges and allegations having been supplied separately, the petitioner remained under the impression that the evidence being adduced in the enquiry was qua Sarla and not him. As a result, the petitioner did not even cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry proceedings, which seriously prejudiced the petitioner. (D) The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation. The petitioner in his appeal had specifically given the details as to why the said appeal could not be filed by him on time. He submitted in his appeal that he was suffering from chronic depression and was under treatment at Ahmedabad. The treatment came to an end on 27.01.2001. A Certificate dated 27.01.2001 was also issued by the Doctor. It is contended that in case the petitioner was physically and mentally fit, there was no reason for not filing the appeal on time. The punishment was like a civil death. As soon as the petitioner was able to cope up with the situation, he immediately filed the appeal after he recovered from his problem after a long drawn treatment. All this should have been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal and the delay should have been condoned. It should not have been dismissed mere on technicalities. He had sufficiently explained the delay. Similarly, the review was also dismissed on the ground of delay. (E) It is submitted that provisions and power of review have been enumerated in Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 and a bare perusal of Proviso (iii) of Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 will reveal that the limitation for filing of review petition is three years. The appellate order was passed on 01.08.2001 and the review was filed on 16.10.2003 by the petitioner. Thus, the review petition filed by the petitioner was within limitation, but still it was dismissed on the ground of limitation. ;