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.