K.S.SIDHU, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ, order or direction for bringing up and quashing the order dated April 30, 1976, made in second appeal by the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter called the Service Rules, dismissing the applicant from its service, and also for directing the said Government to reinstate the applicant in service with payment of emoluments due to him upto date. The facts, about which there is not much dispute, may be recapitulated here.
(2.) RAMESH Kumar Johari, the applicant, was appointed as a constable in the police department of the Government of Rajasthan in 1953 In due course, he was promoted as Head Constable. In 1972, he was posted as Head Constable to the Police Post, Delhi Gate, Ajmer. On February 9, 1972, one Meghraj lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, complaining that his daughter, Premlata, a nurse, under training at that time in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, was missing from his house since February 3, 1972 and that he suspected the hand of some staff members of the said Hospital in the disappearance of his daughter. On February 10. 1972, Premlata was recovered by the police from the residential quarter of the applicant at Ajmer. She made a statement to the police (see page 28 of the paper book) stating that on February 3, 1972, while she was on her way back from the hospital to her father's house, she met Rajkumari, wife of the applicant, near Town Hall and that it was on Rajkumari's persuasion that she agreed to accompany her to her house that evening. Premlata stated in this context that Rajkumar has told her that her (Premlata's) Bhai Sahab (this was Rajkumari's way of referring to her husband) is ill and she must, therefore, visit her house. She further stated that on reaching the applicant's house in the company of Rajkumari, she found that the applicant was lying ill and the applicant's father was also present there. Rajkumari, it is alleged, insisted that Premlata spend the night at her house and go back to her parent's house next morning. She also gave Premleta a glass of Sharbat to drink. According to Premlata, she felt dizziness after taking that Sharbat and went to sleep. She woke up next morning and requested Rajkumari to let her go. She further told the police that Rajkumari then dissuaded her from going back to her parents' house stating that since she had spent the night away from her parent's house without their permission, they would not let her enter it again. She also complained that thereafter Rajkumari kept her wrongfully confined in her house and kept telling her that she would arrange to get a good job for her at Bhilwara. On the basis of Premlata's statement, as mentioned above, the police registered a case against the applicant and his wife Rajkumari under secs. 342 and 366 I.P.C. on February 10, 1972. On investigation, the police submitted a report to the Magistrate concerned that there was no evidence to justify the prosecution of the applicant and his wife for any offence. The report appears to have been accepted by the Magistrate with the result that the applicant and his wife stood exonerated and released in that case. This was, however, not the end of the applicant's troubles. The Department of Police decided to institute an inquiry against him under the Service Rules. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, served upon the applicant the following articles of charge, - (1) That you, Shri Ramesh Kumar Johari, H.C. No. 38, while posted at O.P. Delhi Gate, P.S. Kotwali, Ajmer, were occupying a Government quarter in Kotwali premises, deceptively administered intoxicant and enticed and kept hidden one Premlata in wrongful confinement, without the knowledge of her father and your officers from 3-2-72 to 10-2-72. This act of yours amounts to misconduct: (2) That you. Ramesh Kumar Johari, H.C. No. 38, while posted at O.P. Delhi Gate, P.S. Kotwali Ajmer on the night of 3-2-72 offered some liquid with alcohol (intoxicant) to Premlata saying that it was Sharbat, on drinking which she remained unconscious throughout the night. This act of yours is against law and amounts to misconduct; (3) That you, Ramesh Kumar Johari, H.C. No. 38, while posted at O.P. Delhi Gate, P.S. Kotwali Ajmer, on the intervening night of 3/4-2-72 deceptively made Premlata unconscious by giving her some alcohol mixed liquid and in the morning threatened her with the dire consequences by her parents and keep her hidden in your quarter til! 10-2-72; (4) That you kept Premlata in your quarter under threats and persuaded her to marry in Bhilwara without the knowledge of her parents. This act of yours amounts to misconduct and reflects your mala fide intentions." The applicant denied these charges.
(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri P.D. Upadhayay, Home Inspector, Ajmer, as the Inquiring Officer. THE Inquiring Officer recorded the evidence produced on both sides. He prepared his report of inquiry on July 19, 1972 (See Ex.1 at pages 12 to 17 of the paper book). He exonerated the applicant of, all the articles of the charge-sheet, adding that, even according to Premlata's own showing, the applicant remained confined to sick-bed in his house throughout from February 3 to 10, 1972, and that the Sharbat allegedly containing alcohol or some other intoxicant had been given her for drinking by Rajkumari without the consent or knowledge of the applicant. On receipt of this report, the Disciplinary Authority went through it and expressed his disagreement with it. He prepared his own report (See Ex. 2 at pages 30 to 34 of the paper book), recording the following findings therein - (i) Rajkumari, wife of applicant, had practised deception on Premlata and thus taken her to her house on February 3, 1972; (ii) Rajkumari administered some intoxicant to Premlata in the form of Sharbat on February 3, 1972, as a result of which Premlata lost consciousness; (iii) Rajkumari kept Premlata confined in her house from February 3 to 10, 1972, on one pretext or the other; (iv) THE applicant was sick from February 3 to February 10, 1972, but not to such an extent that he was not aware of the presence of Premlata in his house and what his wife was doing to her; (v) In the circumstances, it is proved that whatever criminal acts were committed by Rajkumari in applicant's house in relation to Premlata, were committed by her in concert with and connivance of the applicant; and (vi) THE fact that the applicant permitted his wife to keep in their house an unmarried young girl, who was stranger to the family for such a long time, clearly shows that the applicant was a partner in crime with his wife. It was on the basis of these findings that the Disciplinary Authority held that all the four articles of charge against the applicant were proved. THE Disciplinary Authority served a notice on the applicant annexing thereto the report of his own findings requiring the applicant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. THE applicant filed his reply reiterating that he was sick throughout the relevant period and that he was not guilty of any misconduct. THE Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant. By his order dated December 18, 1972 (see Ex. 3 at pages 18 to 22 of the paper book), he dismissed the applicant from service. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police from the order of dismissal mentioned above. The Deputy Inspector General of Police reviewed the evidence on the record and recorded his own findings, vide order dated May 9, 1973, as under: - (i) It is established on record that the applicant was sick throughout the relevant period and cannot, therefore, be said to be a party to the crime committed by his wife; (ii) The penalty of dismissal from service is not warranted in the facts of the case. Consequently, the Deputy Inspector General of Police quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and instead inflicted on the applicant a minor penalty by reducing his pay to the minimum of the time-scale of the post of a Head Constable for a period of three years from the date of his reinstatement in service, with a further penalty, that the period of suspension shall be treated as period of leave without pay. ;