Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 793 (RAJ)

Mishri Khan v. State of Rajasthan

1997-07-09

J.C.VERMA

body1997
Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner having been interviewed was declared successful vide order dated 6.6.1994 and was given appointment on the post of Camel Rider (Oshrat Vahak) in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 as per the order attached as Annex.2 to the writ petition and was posted at Tehsil Pokaran vide posting order Annex.3. He had joined in pursuance of his appointment immediately thereafter and continued to hold the post till 19.10.1994 when the District Collector, Jaisalmer vide the impugned order had terminated the services of the petitioner vide order Annex.4. The impugned order Annex.4 contains in it stigma against the petitioner to the fact that on a report received from the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer it has come to the knowledge of the authorities that the father of the petitioner Shri Pandhi Khan is a smuggler and history sheeter of the Police Station, Mohangarhand the petitioner being son of Shri Pandhi Khan and related with the smuggler who happens to be his father and for the reason that his relatives are involved in the anti national activities, it shall not be in the interest of the State to keep him in the Government service. The petitioner was relieved vide order dated 20.10.1994 alongwith another employee Nibab Khan. It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned order casts a clear stigma on the character of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is living separately from his father and has no relation with his father. Therefore, he cannot be victimised on account of alleged undesirable activities of his father. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner involving civil consequence has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. (2). The averments made in the writ petition are not denied. It is admitted by the respondents that the father of the petitioner is a A Class history sheeter of the Police Station Mohangarh and the petitioner has very intimate and close relationswith the smugglers and anti social elements and, therefore, in the facts and circums- tances of the case it was expedient not to retain the petitioner in service. (3). It is admitted by the respondents that the father of the petitioner is a A Class history sheeter of the Police Station Mohangarh and the petitioner has very intimate and close relationswith the smugglers and anti social elements and, therefore, in the facts and circums- tances of the case it was expedient not to retain the petitioner in service. (3). The impugned order, which contains the name of Nibab Khan also, had been challenged by Nibab Khan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5080/1994 and on almost similar grounds. The order of removal was set aside my me while deciding the writ petition of Nibab Khan. It was observed as under:– ``The respondent had filed the written statements through Officer Incharge Asstt. Collector (HQ), Jaisalmer and the facts as stated have not been denied. It has been stated in the reply that because of the fact that petitioner had no where rebutted the fact that his uncle is not connected with anti-national or anti-social activities and, there- fore, the petitioner belongs to family who is anti-social family and being a relative, he has got contacts with his uncle and, therefore, looking into the sensitive area where the petitioner is supposed to work, he has been rightly removed from service. The respondents have also justified the narration of stigma in the impugned order Annex. 4. The writ petition deserves to be allowed because of the reason, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on the count that his uncle happens to be history sheeter. A bare reading of Annex.4 makes it clear that order of termination does not cast stigma on the petitioner. It is also admitted that no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner before removing him from service which amounts to punishment. In case the petitioner himself is found lacking in his character or misconducts himself, action can be taken against the petitioner according to law. The reasons given by the respondents for removing the petitioner are not germane and the petitioner cannot be punished because of the reason that somebody else in his family is of anti-social character. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The reasons given by the respondents for removing the petitioner are not germane and the petitioner cannot be punished because of the reason that somebody else in his family is of anti-social character. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The respondents can always keep a watchful eye on the activities of the petitioner and can even post him at some other suitable place, if there is any such apprehen- sion in the mind of respondents as expressed in written statements. For the reasons given above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex.4 dated 19.10.1994 is set aside. It is known factor that in normal course the appointment is made after the antecedent of the candidates are verified through the police or any other agencies. But it has been observed in the present case and also in the case of Nibab Khan that the respondent authorities instead of verifying the antecedents of the candidates before offering appointment letters, first offered the appointment to such candidate and then sent for verification of the antcedents and on receipt of the adverse antecedent reports against such candidate, the orders of removal are pa- ssed casting stigma. It shall be appropriate and advisable and specially in the border areas that before offering any appointment to any person to the post involving security risk the antecedent and character of the candidates be verified well in advance instead of getting the verification much after the appointment. If need be the Government can issue proper instructions, notification or formulate a rule in this respect as to avoid such like situation in future. (4). In the circumstances of the above case and for the reason that the impugned order did cast stigma there is no escape but to set aside the impugned order. (5). Counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that he would be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is reinstated even without back wages. The request of the counsel for the petitioner is justified. The impugned order dated 19.10.1994 and all consequential orders in this respect are set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated without wages but with continuity of service. However, if the petitioner commits any misconduct during the service, the State authorities are always at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 19.10.1994 and all consequential orders in this respect are set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated without wages but with continuity of service. However, if the petitioner commits any misconduct during the service, the State authorities are always at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above direction. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for doing the needful in regard to verification of the antecedents of the candidates who are to be offered appointment in such circumstances.