Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1197 (RAJ)

Dr. Mohan Lal Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2009-05-01

PRAKASH TATIA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is qualified to hold the post of Medical Officer was subjected to process of selection and thereafter his appointment order was issued on 2.12.1996 certifying as under:- ;g izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;g fu;qfDr fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok fu;e] 1963 ds v/khu HkrhZ ,oa lsok dh 'krksZa dks fofu;fer djus okys fu;e micU/kh ds vuqlj.k esa nh xbZ gS rFkk dkfeZd foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad ,Q&9 ( 20 ) dkfeZd ( d&2 ) 73 fnukad 21-1-74 }kjk fufgr vko';d izek.k i= Hkh cuk;s x;s gSaA inxzg.k ds fy;s ;k=k HkRrk vuqns; ugha gksxkA 3. The petitioner thereafter sought another appointment under Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008') wherein also, he was found suitable and selected vide order dated 29.9.2008 (Annex.P/2). The petitioner was not appointed on the said post of Rural Medical Officer for which he was selected vide order dated 29.9.2008 on account of the fact that a case under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him and therein, it has been decided to file challan against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, could not get the appointment in pursuance to the order dated 29.9.2008. However, on the ground that since the State Government has decided to file challan against the petitioner, therefore, his services given vide order dated 2.12.1996 were also cancelled vide order dated 30.1.2009 (Annex.P/5). Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was duly selected in the selection process under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules of 1963') with the approval of the Department of Personnel which is apparent from Annex.P/1. It is submitted that a person, may he be on ad hoc basis or temporary basis, can be removed in accordance with the Rules and by following the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that mere allegation of any nature itself cannot be a ground to end services of the person who is qualified and selected by the process of selection along with number of persons. It is submitted that mere allegation of any nature itself cannot be a ground to end services of the person who is qualified and selected by the process of selection along with number of persons. It is also submitted that as per Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), a person can be removed from service in case when because of the conduct of the employee, led his conviction on the criminal charge. In this case, admittedly, the impugned order dated 30.1.2009 was passed without following the principles of the natural justice and is contrary to the Rules referred above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of corruption and, therefore, he was rightly denied appointment in pursuance to the order dated 12.1.2009. As far as giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Rural Medical Officer is concerned, the petitioner's antecedents were required to be looked into. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a Government servant and is not governed by the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, Rule 19 has no application. 6. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given appointment by a regular process and by the same order dated 2.12.1996, 8 other persons were given appointment. There is clear mention in the order dated 2.12.1996 that the appointment has been given under the Rules of 1963 and that too after obtaining consent of Department of Personnel of the Government of Rajasthan. 8. The petitioner who was selected by order dated 29.9.2008 is not pressing his grievance against the impugned order dated 12.1.2009 at this stage but submitted that so far as the petitioner's removal from service by order dated 30.1.2009 is concerned, that is bad in law. 9. 8. The petitioner who was selected by order dated 29.9.2008 is not pressing his grievance against the impugned order dated 12.1.2009 at this stage but submitted that so far as the petitioner's removal from service by order dated 30.1.2009 is concerned, that is bad in law. 9. I found force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once he has been given appointment by following prescribed procedure, he cannot be removed from service merely because charge has been levelled against the petitioner may it be of corruption and it cannot be ground to end the service of the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done like without holding any enquiry against the petitioner and following principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the order dated 30.1.2009 is quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to continue on the post given to him vide order dated 2.12.1996 with all consequential benefits.Writ Petition Allowed *******