Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2362 (RAJ)

Dr. Banshi Lal Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-06

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-This is the second stay application filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure P-11). The said suspension order was stayed by this Court. But, later on, the interim order granted by this Court was vacated. 3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules 1958) was served upon the petitioner. The Headquarters of the petitioner was changed from Jodhpur and it was kept at Bikaner, so that the petitioner may not tamper with the evidence, during the pendency of the enquiry against him. 4. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no likelihood regarding tampering with the evidence. The petitioner has already filed a reply to the charge-sheet. Apart from that, the children are also studying at Jodhpur and his Headquarters has been changed by the Government from Jodhpur to Bikaner in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that his change of Headquarters from Jodhpur to Bikaner may be stayed and, in the alternative, the impugned suspension order dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure P-11) may be stayed to the aforesaid extent, during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the case of Dr. M.S. Bhatnagar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 CSJ (HC) 195, in that case, while the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur, he was suspended and his Headquarters was fixed at Jaipur. He challenged that order by filing a writ petition before this Court. Then, the learned Single Judge of this Court, Shri Milap Chandra Jain, (as he then was) held that the headquarters should normally be the last place of duty. It was also held that the Competent Authority may, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in the interest of public service, fix any other place as the headquarters. There is nothing on the record to show any public interest in fixing their headquarters at Jodhpur. 6. Mr. It was also held that the Competent Authority may, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in the interest of public service, fix any other place as the headquarters. There is nothing on the record to show any public interest in fixing their headquarters at Jodhpur. 6. Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Additional Advocate General, has filed reply to the second stay application and submitted that earlier, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated March 23, 2005 (Annexure P-11) and his headquarters was fixed at Bikaner. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court and this Court refused to grant him any relief . It is further submitted that earlier, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, but, later on, the charge-sheet has been changed from Rule 17 to Rule 16 by the Department. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is, prayed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the second stay application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 8. It may be mentioned that vide ad-interim order dated 08.04.2005, passed by this Court, the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure P-11) and relieving order dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-10) were ordered to be stayed till next date of hearing. 9. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.07.2005, passed by this Court, the interim stay order dated 08.04.2005 granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated and the stay petition was rejected, observing that since the charges against the petitioner were quite serious in nature, the respondent -Director, Secondary Education was directed to explain as to why the charge-sheet, for such a serious allegation, is issued only under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules of 1958. 10. Against the said order dated 20.07.2005, the petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 309/2005 Dr. Banshi Lal Jakhar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in which he has taken the plea in Ground B that “once the charge-sheet has been given under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 by the competent authority, it cannot be said that he has not gone through the charges levelled against the petitioner. Banshi Lal Jakhar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in which he has taken the plea in Ground B that “once the charge-sheet has been given under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 by the competent authority, it cannot be said that he has not gone through the charges levelled against the petitioner. When the charge-sheet has been given under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, changing the headquarter of the petitioner from Jodhpur to Bikaner, without assigning any reason is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power which is against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the case, hence the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside.” 11. The aforesaid Special Appeal of the appellant (petitioner) was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2005, observing that “the order of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to explain as to why the charge-sheet has been issued only under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 is modified to the extent that it will be open for the respondents to convert the enquiry under Rule 17, in accordance with the relevant Rules, subject to rights and contention of the appellant.” 12. Since, the plea of change of headquarters from Jodhpur to Bikaner, as alleged by the petitioner in ground B of the aforesaid D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 309/2005, has already been taken and decided by the Division Bench in its order dated 09.08.2005, there arises now, no question for the petitioner to make such a prayer in the second stay application as the controversy, as alleged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Special Appeal, has already been set at rest by the order of the Division Bench of this Court. 13. So far as the case of Dr. M.S. Bhatnagar (Supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be mentioned that the learned Single Judge has mentioned in his order that normally, the headquarters should be the last place of duty. However, the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in the interest of public service, fix any other place as the headquarters. In the instant case, there are serious charges with regard to his behaviour etc., against the petitioner. However, the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in the interest of public service, fix any other place as the headquarters. In the instant case, there are serious charges with regard to his behaviour etc., against the petitioner. Not only that, even the Inquiry Officer has mentioned in her enquiry report submitted to the Government that in any case, the conduct of Dr. Jakhar is not in consonance with the interest of the project/department. He used to create hurdles in the project of the Government and the stringent action was required to be taken against him. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and the entire record available on record, Dr. Jakhar was suspended and his headquarters was fixed at Bikaner in the interest of public service, as he was draggers drawn with a lady officer - Smt. Snehlata Sharma who, in the interest of Government, was running the project smoothly and, on the other hand, Dr. Jakhar was creating hurdles in the same frequently. Apart from that, the instructions of the Government do not bound the Competent Authority to not to shift the headquarters of the suspended employee, in the public interest. Thus, keeping in view, all the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the authority referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no help or assistance to him in the instant case. 14. In the result, I do not find any merit in the second stay application. The same is, therefore, rejected.