BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Judgment

3. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur. Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Hd. Qrs.), Jaipur City. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Madan Mohan Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 20/08/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated

18.01.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority-the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Jaipur whereby, the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner-a Constable, was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 vide Memorandum dated 03.09.2007 wherein, following two charges were levelled:- “vkjksi uEcj %& 1 fnukad 7&7&2007 dks vkius vius nksLr ftrsUnz dqekj] lat; dqekj ds lkFk bf.Mdk dkj uEcj [2025:RJ-JP:32658] (2 of 5) [CW-5558/2019] Mh,y&3lh;w&9071 ds pksjh gks tkus dk >¡wBk "kM;a= tkucq>dj jpkA vkius bl "kM;a= esa vkesj Fkkus ds dkfu0 Jh fot; dqekj uEcj 5578 dks 'kkfey fd;kA vki o fot; dqekj us ftrsUnz dqekj] lat; dqekj dh bf.Mdk dkj uEcj Mhy&3lh;w&9071 dh pksjh gks tkus dh >w¡Bh fjiksVZ iqfyl Fkkuk vkesj esa ntZ djokus dk iz;kl fd;kA vkidk ;g vkpj.k v'kksHkuh; jgk tks jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1971 ds fu;e&4 dk mYya?ku gSA vkjksi uEcj %& 2 vki dkuwu dks HkWyh&Hkkafr tkurs gq;s ,oa iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh gksrs gq;s Hkh vijkf/k;ksa dk xyr dk;Z esa lg;ksx fd;k ftlds dkj.k vkids o vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:} iqfyl Fkkuk vkesj t;iqj 'kgj ¼mRrj½ esa vfHk;ksx la[;k 286/07 /kkjk 420] 120ch] 571 vkbZ0ih0lh0 esa iathc) gqvkA vkidk ;g d`R; jktdk;Z ds izfr ykijokgh] vuq'kklughurk ,oa vijkf/k;ksa ls lkaB&xkaB djus dk ifjpk;d gS] tks fu;ekuqlkj n.Muh; gSA” After conducting the enquiry, the petitioner was punished, vide order dated 18.01.2011, in the manner as stated hereinabove. Later on, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) acquitted him and the co-accused persons in the Case No.100/17 (151/2008) NCV No.3528/14 vide judgment dated 25.01.2018 arising out of selfsame incident. The petitioner preferred an appeal, after his acquittal, against the order dated

18.01.2011 which was dismissed by the appellate authority-the [2025:RJ-JP:32658] (3 of 5) [CW-5558/2019] Police Commissioner, Jaipur vide order dated 23.08.2018 being barred by limitation. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, he was punished by the disciplinary authority primarily on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation in the FIR No.286/2007 and the charge-sheet filed therein, after his acquittal in criminal case arising therefrom by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated

25.01.2018, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 18.01.2011 be quashed and set aside and he be exonerated from the charges levelled against him vide Memorandum dated 03.09.2007. Per conta, though, the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer by submitting that in the criminal case, he was acquitted extending the benefit of doubt but, could not dispute that the disciplinary authority has recorded the finding of guilt of the petitioner primarily based on the statements recorded during the course of investigation and on the basis of charge-sheet filed in the criminal case. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order impugned dated 18.01.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority reflects that although, while holding the petitioner guilty of charge No.1, it was held that the co- delinquent Vijay Singh-a Constable (Driver) has admitted during the course of personal hearing that to lodge the subject FIR, the petitioner had requested him telephonically which was corroborated from the statement of S/Shri Umrao Singh (PW-1), [2025:RJ-JP:32658] (4 of 5) [CW-5558/2019] Satyanarain (PW-2) and Anil Kumar Doriya (PW-3) but, failed to appreciate that the statement of co-delinquent made during the course of oral hearing is not admissible and, in any case, could not have been relied upon against the petitioner who had no opportunity to rebut the same. Further, the order reveals that the factum of statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation in FIR No.286/2007 and filing of the charge-sheet No.21/2008 therein was given primacy while finding the charge No.1 to be proved. So far as the charge No.2 is concerned, it was held to be proved against the petitioner only on the basis of statement of Shri Raghuraj Singh (PW-8) recorded under Section 161 CrPC and filing of the charge-sheet after investigation. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges levelled primarily on the basis of investigation in the FIR No.286/2007 and findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on independent evidence recorded during the course of disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the findings are not sustainable especially when he has acquitted in the criminal case arising from the same set of allegations. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that acquittal is of no avail to the petitioner as it is based on benefit of doubt, does not merit acceptance in view of the fact that the petitioner was punished in the departmental enquiry primarily on the basis of the investigation and its conclusion drawn by the investigating agency in the criminal case which ultimately resulted into his acquittal. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:32658] (5 of 5) [CW-5558/2019] Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 18.01.2011 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is exonerated from the charges levelled against him vide Memorandum dated 03.09.2007. The respondents are directed to accord consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today failure whereof shall entail a cost of ₹500/- per day payable to him to be borne by the officer(s) responsible for delay. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Manish/120 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J