VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of removal of petitioner from service dated 12/10/1994 (Annex. 2) on the ground that he was found to have been charged for committing rape on 10/9/1994 on Ms.Uma Gani at a public place between the night of 9th and 10th September 1994.
(2.) THE main ground of assailing the said order in the present writ petition is that the competent court which held the trial in the matter arising from FIR No. 289/94 acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC by order dated 14/2/1995 as it was found to be a case of no evidence. The said order of learned ADJ, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 35/94 - State of Rajasthan v. Mange Ram is at Annex. 1 in the writ petition. The said order has become final as it appears that no appeal against said order of acquittal has been filed by the State. Learned Counsel Mr. B.P. Bohra has also urged that respondent authority - Commandant, RPF, Bikaner has passed the said order of removal without holding any inquiry against the petitioner and the statement made in the impugned order that it was not practicable to hold enquiry as witnesses were not likely to come forward is not sufficient and it is a mere reiteration of the stipulation in Rule 16t of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 as well as Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Chief Security Officer and Ors. v. Singasan Rabl Das - : (1991) 1 SCC 729 and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2006) 5 SCC 446 : RLW 2006(3) SC 2480, he submitted that the impunged order of removal from service deserves to be quashed and set aside as without holding any inquiry against the petitioner, petitioner could not be removed from service.
(3.) ON the side opposite, Mr. Nimesh Suthar for Mr. Ravi Bhansali urged that irrespective of acquittal by the competent court, the conduct of petitioner was sufficient to remove him from service and since the, competent authority was of the opinion, whose decision according to Article 311(3) of the Constitution is final, that it was not practicable to hold such inquiry against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of removal from service is not required to be interfered with by this Court.;