CW 669/95 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.669/95 Deen Dayal Sharma Versus UOI & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. K.N. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. S.S. Hasan, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order by which penalty of removal from service inflicted vide order Ann.6 dt.13th November, 1990 and the appeal preferred before the next higher authorities were also rejected vide order Ann.7 dt.28th March, 1991 and so also vide order dt.2nd November, 1992. Petitioner while working as Constable in Railway Protection Force for alleged misconduct, was placed under suspension vide order dt.4th August, 1990 and served him charge sheet along with memorandum dt.1st September, 1990 [Ann.3]. Charge against petitioner was that he was detected in wrongful possession of one stainless steel can valued Rs.35/- by IPF/ADI at 16.05 hours and panchnama to this effect was also prepared duly signed by other officer present at site. After charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, he submitted his reply and the inquiry officer after affording opportunity of CW 669/95 [2] hearing in accordance with rules held him guilty. It will be relevant to mention that during the course of inquiry, statements of all such persons who are signatory to the panchnama confirmed and identified stolen article which was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the said statement was confirmed by IPF P.G. Deshmukh of ADI and after affording opportunity to the petitioner, the inquiry officer held him guilty taking note of the record of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority while accepting his guilt punished with the penalty of removal from service vide order dt.13th November, 1990 and departmental appeals preferred were also rejected. Counsel for petitioner submits that before passing of order of penalty Ann.6 dt.13th November, 1990 copy of inquiry report was not supplied which has caused prejudice to him. He placed reliance on the judgment of apex court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC-588]. Taking assistance thereof, counsel submits that even though the judgment of apex court was prospective pronounced on 20th November, 1990 and being intra proceeding, he too is entitled to seek relief in the light of judgment [supra] and thus, there was clear denial of principles of natural justice. Counsel further CW 669/95 [3] submits that his defence has not been appreciated by the disciplinary authority and came up with the specific case that he was going to deposit stolen property as alleged and story has been concocted against him and for alleged misconduct penalty has been inflicted upon him. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and while supporting order of disciplinary authority, counsel further submits that opportunity was afforded to the petitioner at all stages and no prejudice has caused to him in the course of inquiry. In the absence whereof, order inflicting penalty is not required to be interfered with by this court. Counsel further submits that so far as report of inquiry is concerned, judgment of the apex court referred to by the petitioner's counsel was prospective as observed in Para 17 and since the penalty was inflicted prior thereto, respondent has rightly supplied him report of inquiry along with copy of order inflicting penalty. Inquiry was conducted in accordance with R.153 of Railway Protection Force Rules and it is not the case of the petitioner that during the course of inquiry opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him and this court is not sitting as CW 669/95 [4] an appellate authority to examine and re- appreciate the finding recorded during the course of inquiry under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. As regards submission made by counsel that copy of inquiry report has not been supplied, suffice it to say that the judgment on which petitioner placed reliance it was made to be prospective by the apex court and indisputably the order inflicting penalty upon the petitioner was passed prior thereto and apart from it, the petitioner has not been able to show what prejudice has been caused on account of non- supply of copy of inquiry report. In absence whereof, order of penalty is not required to be interfered with. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, charge of theft against a Constable found proved. This court does not find any justification to interfere with quantum of punishment. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA669CW95 12-2.doc