SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of the order dated nil (appended as Annexure-7 with the writ petition) issued by the State Government reverting the appellant from the post of Inspector of police to the post of Sub-Inspector. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated November 29, 1999. Hence this appeal.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short `cca Rules'), was served on May 30, 1986 on the appellant while he was posted as SHO Police Station Karauli. Following five charges were framed against the appellant:- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... Joint inquiry was initiated against the appellant and Bhagwan Singh, Dy. SP. Inquiry Officer was appointed who on conclusion of inquiry submitted his report on October 10, 1988. In the report all the charges except charge No. 5 were found proved against the appellant. The State Government considered the report of Inquiry Officer and proposed to withhold five annual grade increments of the appellant with cumulative effect. The proposal was sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC ). The RPSC examined the matter and found the punishment insufficient. The RPSC advised the State Government to revert the appellant from the post of Inspector to the post of Sub Inspector. The State Government agreed with the advise and reverted the appellant as indicated herein above. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H. C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364) held that the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. If the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as it stands, it will be seen whether from such evidence the impugned conclusion follows or not? It was observed as under:- In dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2), the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. Although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence (Para 20 ). It was further indicated thus:-      " It is not necessary that in order to attack the order on the ground that it is based on no evidence malafide exercise of power by the Government should be alleged. The two infirmities are separate and district though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. If it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will issue without further proof of malafides. " (Para 22)
(3.) HAVING carefully gone through the material on record we find that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the State Government. A look at the memorandum of charges demonstrates that in the year 1982 while the appellant was posted as SHO at Police Station Salempur, informant Kinduri Lal Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jagdishpura submitted a written report on October 17, 1982 to the effect that dead body of unknown woman was floating in the well. The appellant registered Mrig Report No. 3/82 under Section 174 Crpc and handed over inquiry to Hajari Lal, Asstt. Sub-Inspector. Hajari Lal immediately went to the spot, got the dead body out of the well, drew inquest report and memo of site and got the autopsy on the dead body performed. During inquiry it was found that dead body was of Bhagwani, whose husband Sri Lal had already died some two and half years back. Hajari Lal suspected that somebody had murdered Bhagwani. Long and short of the five charges framed against the appellant was that he did not deliberately register a case and directed Hajari Lal ASI to proceed under Section 174 Crpc. We therefore, at the outset, proceed to scan Section 174 Crpc, which reads as under:-      " 174. Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. (1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forward to the District Magistrate or the Sub- divisional Magistrate. (3) When- (i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or (ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or (iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or (iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or (v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed, in this behalf by the State Government, if the State of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless. (4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate. " Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Poodda Narayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 1252) indicated that the proceedings under Section 174 Crpc have a very limited scope. The object is merely to ascertain whether a person has died in suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death. The question regarding details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceeding under Section 174. As noticed above, the power to hold inquest has been conferred by Crpc on the District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate and any other executive Magistrate. ;