CW Case No. 4615 of 2012. Case: Om Prakash Vs State (Home Department) and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
|Case Number:||CW Case No. 4615 of 2012|
|Party Name:||Om Prakash Vs State (Home Department) and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: K.C. Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: A.S. Khangarot, GC|
|Judges:||Alok Sharma, J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Article 226|
|Judgement Date:||February 08, 2017|
|Court:||Rajasthan High Court|
Alok Sharma, J.
A challenge has been made to the orders dated 21-5-2010, 6-8-2010 and 28-11-2011, i.e. order of penalty as confirmed in appeal and review where the petitioner has been removed from service from the post of constable following a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1958').
The facts of the case are that the petitioner a constable posted at Kotwali Alwar was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on the ground that while he was sent for job training on 1-9-1993 at 8.00 AM to Police Line Alwar he reached it only on 3-9-1993 at 1.30 PM in an inebriated state with blooded injuries on his person. On medical examination he was found to have consumed excessive liquor. In the following enquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charge of reporting for duty in an inebriated condition proved against the petitioner. The charge proved being very serious more so in the context of the uniformed service requiring discipline, the petitioner was removed from service vide penalty order dated 15-9-1995. A challenge to the said order was laid in writ petition No. 308/2002, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 13-7-2009 with a direction that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing after providing a copy of the enquiry report to him.
Following the order dated 13-7-2009 in SBCWP No. 308/2002, the petitioner was supplied a copy of the enquiry report and provided an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter vide order dated 21-5-2010 he was again punished with the penalty of removal from service. That order was upheld in appeal on 6-8-2010. The Reviewing Authority vide order dated 28-11-2011 found no ground for interfere. Hence this petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Duli Chand [1997 WLC (Raj.)UC 658] and General Secretary Hindustan Zinc Majdoor Union v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [1997(3) RLW Raj. 1552] to contend that punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct found. He submitted that the misconduct in issue being the first incident in the petitioner's service career, a more reasonable view on penalty ought to have been taken by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities and the petitioner should have been visited with a lesser penalty than the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL