SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority exercising powers under Rule 32(b)(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') whereby the petitioner was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority of the charge levelled against him, was punished by the Appellate Authority disagreeing with the order of Disciplinary Authority and was served with punishment of censure.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Inspector and was posted as SHO at Police Station Dausa and a charge sheet was served upon him under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 regarding an incident. Two charges were levelled firstly that when he was holding the post of SHO a case was registered under Sections 143, 451, 323 IPC on 02.01.2013 which was to be chalked and sent to the Headquarters on the next date but the same was not received upto 03:00 P.M. on 04.01.2013 and therefore there was a lack of interest in performing government duty. Second charge levelled against him was in relation to the case No.05/13, registered on 02.01.2013 at his Police Station and it was stated that case under Section 452 IPC was made out but the case was registered only under Section 451 IPC and the same therefore showed gross carelessness on his part. Petitioner submitted his reply and after having given personal hearing, the Superintendent of Police found that there was a small scuffle relating to drainage in front of the complainant's house, and therefore the case under Section 451 IPC was registered and with regard to the delay in sending the report it was found that because of the fault of the printer the clean copy of the FIR could not be taken out and therefore after getting the printer corrected, the report was sent to the office at 05:30 P.M. The Superintendent of Police, therefore, exonerated the petitioner with warning to remain careful in future. A notice disagreeing with the order passed by the Superintendent of Police was served upon the petitioner on 17.04.2013 to which he submitted a detailed reply pointed out that the investigation was being conducted by his subordinate Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mahendra Singh, who found that the quarrel had occurred outside the house on issue relating to the drainage and ultimately report was submitted that the case under Section 452 was not made out and charge sheet was also filed under Section 341, 323, 325, 34 IPC alone. Thus, it could not have been said that the petitioner had been careless towards his duties. However, the I.G. Police, Jaipur vide order dated 26.07.2013 without giving any reasons has proceeded to punish the petitioner with censure. The ground of punishment is that the petitioner ought to have taken steps against the concerned Assistant Sub-Inspector who was conducting the investigation relating to the said FIR and since the petitioner had not taken any action against his subordinate, the case of serious carelessness towards the duty is made out.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that the notice given to the petitioner under Rule 32 was not for the purpose of dereliction of duties towards not taking action against ASI and the notice for disagreement was that the petitioner himself had not registered the FIR under Section 452 IPC and had also not sent the document in time.;