Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1536 (RAJ)

Babulal Verma v. The State of Rajasthan

2010-08-25

DINESH MAHESHWARI, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to show interference in this intra court appeal filed against the order dated 09.07.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5832/2010. 2. The appellant is said to have retired from service in the month of February 2003 while holding the post of Nurse Grade-I. The appellant is facing an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958') read with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'); and for that matter, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 28.10.2004. The enquiry is said to be pending and three departmental witnesses have been examined therein. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition in this matter (CWP No. 5832/2010) while contending that the enquiry was wholly without jurisdiction being hit by the mandate of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules of 1996 and while stating the grievance that the enquiry proceedings were going on for about six years and he was unnecessarily deprived of retiral benefits. 4. The learned Single Judge proceeded to reject the writ petition so filed by the appellant particularly after finding that neither the objection regarding jurisdiction nor the grievance regarding time taken in enquiry was raised before the authority concerned. The learned Single Judge said,- "Having thus heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is no ground for the petitioner to rush to this Court in the present matter against pending enquiry and the charge sheet per-se cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. If the delinquent official has certain grievances and seeks to challenge the initiation of enquiry on the strength of Rule 7(2)(b) also, he should have raised this objection before the authority concerned himself and and it goes without saying that question of jurisdiction deserves to be always decided as first question. The time taken in the enquiry might be for a variety of reasons and it was for the petitioner to have raised the grievance in this regard and having failed to make any representation before the authority concerned, this Court cannot quash the charge sheet merely on these bald submissions of the petitioner in the present writ petition." 5. The time taken in the enquiry might be for a variety of reasons and it was for the petitioner to have raised the grievance in this regard and having failed to make any representation before the authority concerned, this Court cannot quash the charge sheet merely on these bald submissions of the petitioner in the present writ petition." 5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, it is contended in this appeal that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and at any time; and that the writ petition ought not to have been thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy of raising objection before the authority concerned. In support, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 126 . It is also submitted that the proceedings in the enquiry are pending for over six years; and protraction of the proceedings is working to the prejudice of the appellant, who is deprived of his retiral benefits for an inordinate length of time and for no reason. 6. So far the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is no and there cannot be any quarrel with the fundamental of the principles that a writ petition can be held maintainable even if an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party in the cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction. However, it is noticed in this case that the issue of jurisdiction sought to be raised by the appellant relates to certain basic questions of fact particularly about the period when the event in question took place, per Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules of 1996. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that this kind of objection ought to have been raised before the authority concerned; and without the appellant having done so, the writ Court could not have quashed the charge-sheet on such a ground, sought to be taken up only by way of the writ petition. It is also noticed that such an objection on want of jurisdiction was put forward by the petitioner nearly six years after initiation of the proceedings; and as at present, the enquiry is under-way and three witnesses have been examined. It is also noticed that such an objection on want of jurisdiction was put forward by the petitioner nearly six years after initiation of the proceedings; and as at present, the enquiry is under-way and three witnesses have been examined. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction in this case.6A. The learned Single Judge has, however, observed that the question of jurisdiction when raised, deserves always to be decided as a first question. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, it appears appropriate to observe that if at all the petitioner raises any such objection, it will be expected of the authority concerned to decide the same at the first and without further delay. At the same time, it appears apposite to observe that unnecessary delay in enquiry proceedings cannot be appreciated; and it shall be expected of the authority concerned to take all the requisite steps to conclude the enquiry at the earliest. 7. With the observations foregoing, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******