1 SBCW NO.3864/1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3864/98 Bhoor Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. Date of Order : : 24/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Tak, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.13 dated 6.2.1996, order Annex.15 dated 30.11.1996 and order Annex.17 dated 08.12.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence to prove any of the charges 2 SBCW NO.3864/1998 levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the statements of complainant Babru, Pyari, Sajjudi, Meghraj, Mohan Lal etc. Annex.3 to 9. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders impugned. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide Annex.12 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) with the allegation that on 18.04.1994 at about 7-8 P.M. while complainant Babru, a truck driver, driving a truck was proceeding on the way to Kanod, the said truck was said to have been got stopped by the petitioner and one Narayan Singh, Police ASI and Constable respectively and demanded gratification and subsequent thereto a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioner after having borrowed from witness Meghraj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the witnesses examined by the departmental nominee have stated in their statements that the petitioner ever demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- or any other amount. Complainant Babru stated that on 18.4.1994 at about 7.00-7.30-8.00 P.M., his truck got punctured and therefore, he was going for puncture repairing along with witnesses Sajjudi, Pyari and two other persons and 3 SBCW NO.3864/1998 the one of the Headlight of the truck was not working, and therefore, he was going slowly. While he was going towards Kanod for getting the puncture repaired, the petitioner and one Narayan Singh got his truck stopped saying that there is a wooden smuggling in the area and therefore, they want to check the truck, upon which, ASI checked the truck and did not find any wooden, however, found two girls sitting in the truck and therefore, asked the complainant that why he is moving with two girls in the night. However, the witness categorically stated that he was neither threatened nor assaulted by the petitioner. Even the witness stated that the petitioner neither demanded any money nor he has paid any amount to the petitioner. However, subsequent thereto, it is alleged that he paid Rs. 200/- to Narayan Singh. According to learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against him in the statements of witnesses examined including witness Meghraj from whom it was alleged that the money was borrowed and paid to the petitioner. In the statement of Meghraj, he has not stated anything either regarding borrowing of money by the complainant and thereafter paying the same to the petitioner. Along with Annex.11, show cause notice dated 29.12.1995, an inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer found that 4 SBCW NO.3864/1998 charge No.1 has been proved and charge No.2 has been partly proved. The inquiry officer held that the truck of the complainant was got stopped and it was checked by the petitioner, except this there being no evidence that the petitioner threatened or assaulted the complainant or demanded any amount or any amount was paid to the petitioner. The charge No.2 said to have been proved on the statement of Meghraj. On careful perusal of the statement of Meghraj, what has been stated by the inquiry officer in arriving at his conclusion, I do not find such deposition in his statement and therefore, in my view, the conclusion arrived at by inquiry officer is by misreading of evidence or rather no evidence. On the contrary such a conclusion is based on the surmises and conjectures. The disciplinary authority also agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer. From the perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority, in my view, no independent finding has been recorded by the disciplinary authority. Thus, the finding of the inquiry officer as also disciplinary authority cannot sustain. So is the case of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal vide Annex.15. On a review petition against the order passed in appeal, Annex.15, His Excellency the Governor modified the punishment from reduction in rank to that of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Though 5 SBCW NO.3864/1998 keeping in view the scope of interference in the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer being limited, but since there is absolutely no evidence connecting the petitioner and therefore, in my view, the orders impugned deserve to be interfered with as the same are unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 6.2.1996 (Annex.13), order passed by Appellate Authority dated 30.11.1996 (Annex.15) and order passed by Reviewing Authority dated 8.12.1997 (Annex.17) are quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp