Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his removal dt. 26.02.1992. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in G.R.P., Ajmer in 1966. He was promoted on the post of Head Constable in year 1970. He was transferred from G.R.P., Ajmer to Police Lines District Jaipur in March, 1983. On 04.08.1988 he was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department. He was served with a charge -sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 some time in October, 1988. Charge against petitioner was that while he was posted with Police Line, Jaipur and was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department, he in drunken position went to Circle near Railway Station, Jaipur on a rickshaw with one Rajendra Singh, who was under the influence of liquor. The rickshaw was parked on the main road which led to obstruction in traffic. Shri Kailash Chand Meena, Constable of RPF, requested him to remove the rickshaw, whom he started beating, as a result of which Shri Kailash Chand suffered injuries. A criminal case was also registered against him with Police Station, J.R.P., Jaipur in which challan was filed in the Court on 30.09.1988. Petitioner denied the charges. Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer. As many as eight witnesses were examined by department whereas petitioner examined one Narendar Pal Singh, fellow constable who was posted with him as Guard on relevant date in the Income Tax Department. The Disciplinary Authority by his order dt. 26.02.1992 awarded penalty of dismissal. Petitioner preferred appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur, who by his order dt. 21.4.1993 dismissed the same. Hence, the writ petition. Shri G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that all the witnesses examined by department itself before Enquiry Officer, have stated that incident took place on 15.08.1988 and according to charge against petitioner, incident took place on 13.08.1988. Even than Enquiry Officer recorded findings that incident took place on 15.08.1988 in which petitioner was involved. Learned Counsel submitted that Kailash Chand Meena, who is alleged to have been beaten, himself in his statement stated that he did not know petitioner personally and further stated that it was Rajendra Singh, who was pulling the rickshaw and who named the petitioner and, therefore, he has named him (petitioner Kanwar Singh). Learned Counsel submitted that allegation that petitioner was heavily druncked also cannot be taken as proved against petitioner because while Rajendra Singh was subjected to medical examination petitioner was never. According to charge incident of 'marpeet' with Kailash Chand Meena took place on 13.08.1988, but all departmental witnesses namely; Shri Kailash Chand, Nathuram another Constable who is said to have intervened to save him, Shri Ramniwas Yadav, then posted as Inspector RPF, Shri Mahu Singh Sub -Inspector RPF, have consistently stated that incident took place on 15.08.1988. Learned Counsel submitted that had enquiry report been supplied to petitioner, he would have made his submissions on all these aspects in his representation that would have been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal without supplying him copy of enquiry report, which gravely prejudiced petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has been falsely implicated in a case. Petitioner was very much on duty as Incharge of Armed Guard in Income Tax Department, which fact has been proved by the defence witness, Shri Narendar Pal Singh fellow constable who proved that he was on duty with him on that day at Income Tax Department. Shri G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel submitted that Disciplinary Authority has not at all examined all these aspects inasmuch as the order of penalty passed by Disciplinary Authority is completely silent in what manner and how has he satisfied himself about proof of charge against petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that according to Rule 16 (9) of CCA Rules, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record his finding on each of the charges with reference to evidence. It was argued that Disciplinary Authority has taken influence from some matter against the petitioner in which he was allegedly suspended on 14.06.1989. No charge on that aspect was framed against petitioner inasmuch as he was not given opportunity to give his defence on that extraneous material. The order of penalty is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel submitted that even in the appeal filed before Appellate Authority, petitioner has raised all these arguments including the argument that date of incident as per evidence is 15.08.1988, whereas charge -sheet supplied to petitioner alleged that date of incident is 13.08.1988 and as per evidence petitioner was on duty on that day as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department. Even than the Appellate Authority without application of mind has rejected his argument by holding that Inquiry Officer has found the incident of 13.08.1988 and not of 15.08.1988 referring from the relevant part of enquiry report. Learned Counsel submitted that this finding of Appellate Authority is perverse and has been recorded without application of mind because the Enquiry Officer has on the contrary recorded findings that incident took place on 15.08.1988. Learned Counsel relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. : AIR 1991 SC 471 and submitted that in view of non -supply of enquiry report, order of penalty is liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that order of dismissal be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.
(3.) SHRI Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petition and submitted that Enquiry Officer has found charges against the petitioner proved on the basis of evidence and number of witnesses. Since Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, he was not required to record detailed findings on the charges. Learned Counsel submitted that mere fact that date of incident has been incorrectly recorded in the charge -sheet as 13.08.1988 instead of 15.08.1988 would not show that incident did not take place, more particularly, when number of witnesses have supported charges against petitioner. On the question of supply of enquiry report, learned Counsel cited judgment of Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar., : AIR 1994 SC 1074 and argued that Supreme Court in this judgment diluted the law laid down by Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) to hold that mere non -supply of enquiry report by itself would not be a reason to annul the order of penalty and direct reinstatement of the delinquent. In such cases, at the maximum if the Court finds that prejudice has been caused, the Court can only direct to furnish him with copy of report and afford opportunity to show if and how was the prejudice caused, but with liberty to hold fresh enquiry from stage of furnishing report.;