Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 189 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-27

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge- sheet dated 17/22.10.1996 Annexure-21 and prayed that the proceedings initiated against him by the District Collector, Churu in pursuance of the aforesaid charge-sheet may be quashed and set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was substantively appointed as LDC in the Office of District Collector, Churu on 08.09.1980. While in service, the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination conducted by Raj. Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade- II in the year 1980. The petitioner was selected and after his selection, his name was forwarded for appointment to the Irrigation Department by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Collector, Churu vide letter dated 29.11.1980 requested the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel for appointment of the petitioner in the Collectorate, Churu itself. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to be appointed in the Irrigation Department by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Jaipur dated 30.1.1981 and in pursuance of the said order, an order was issued by the Superintending Engineer and Water Controller for Rajasthan on 13.2.1981 whereby the petitioner was given posting at Chandigarh. The order dated 13.2.1981 is on record as Annexure-3. 4. After appointment of the petitioner at Chandigarh vide order dated 13.2.1981, the Department of Personnel, Jaipur reallotted the petitioner to the Collectorate, Churu vide order dated 21.2.1981 for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order dated 21.2.1981 as Annexure-4. When the fact of reallotment came to the knowledge of the petitioner, then, a representation was filed by the petitioner before the Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan at Chandigarh on 09.03.1981 for relieving him to join in the Office of District Collector, Churu. Upon the prayer for relieving him in pursuance of the reallotment order dated 21.2.1981, the matter was referred to the Chief Engineer and in return, the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 2.4.1981 directed the Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh to obtain resignation from the petitioner and thereafter to relieve the petitioner to join in the Office of Collectorate, Churu. In terms of the letter dated 2.4.1981, the petitioner submitted resignation on 07.04.1981 with the request to relieve him and forward this application for his appointment to the Office of Collectorate, Churu. In terms of the letter dated 2.4.1981, the petitioner submitted resignation on 07.04.1981 with the request to relieve him and forward this application for his appointment to the Office of Collectorate, Churu. The Assistant Engineer Cum Technical Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Water Controller, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 08.04.1981 relieved the petitioner while observing the fact of filing resignation from the post in Irrigation Department made an endorsement in the order dated 08.04.1981 that he may join in the Office of District Collector, Churu and in the endorsement No.2 of the order dated 8.4.1981, it is specifically mentioned that the original application of the employee along with the order dated 21.2.1981 may be sent to the District Collector, Churu for further action. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 08.04.1981 issued by the Assistant Engineer Cum Technical Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, the petitioner submitted an application for joining in the office of District Collector, Churu and the District Collector, Churu accepted the joining of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer Grade II and gave information to the Department of Personnel vide communication dated 13/14.4.1981. After joining on the post of Stenographer in the office of District Collector, Churu in pursuance of the order dated 21.2.1981 passed by DOP as well as by under the order dated 08.04.1981, the petitioner continued on the post of Stenographer Grade-II in the Office of District Collector, Churu. 6. It is also worthwhile to observe that the District Collector, Churu informed the petitioner on 25.4.1981 that his request for treating him in continuous service of the State shall be considered after completion of period of probation. The copy of the communication dated 25.4.1981 is on record as Annexure- 14. On 24.1.1983, the petitioner moved an application for releasing his increments while treating his appointment to the post of Steno Grade II w.e.f. 25.2.1981. The respondents after completion of 9 years of service granted selection scale to the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.1992. The name of the petitioner was also included in the seniority list of Personal Assistants because the post of Stenographer Grade II was upgraded and converted into the post of Personal Assistant. 7. The respondents after completion of 9 years of service granted selection scale to the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.1992. The name of the petitioner was also included in the seniority list of Personal Assistants because the post of Stenographer Grade II was upgraded and converted into the post of Personal Assistant. 7. In the year 1981, after receiving re-allotment order in the office of District Collector, Churu, no formal order was issued, therefore, to rectify mistake, after 13 years of service, the Collector, Churu issued an order on 4.3.1994 appointing the petitioner as Stenographer Grade II w.e.f. 09.04.1981 in the office of District Collector, Churu because petitioner was working on the post of Stenographer Grade II since 1981 and thereafter, the impugned charge-sheet dated 17/22.10.1996 was issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 to the petitioner in which it is alleged that the petitioner has concealed the factum of filing resignation from the Office of Collector, Churu and further it is alleged that the petitioner submitted his joining report by concealing correct facts and tried to obtain the salary for the month of April, 1981 without any formal order of appointment and has thus practice fraud with the State Government. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the charge sheet issued to him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. However, District Collector, Churu vide order dated 10.12.1996 appointed the enquiry office to conduct the enquiry while not accepting the reply filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the validity of the charge-sheet submits that no misconduct whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner because admittedly the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II through Raj. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the validity of the charge-sheet submits that no misconduct whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner because admittedly the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II through Raj. Public Service Commission and initially he was allotted to the Irrigation Department but later on a re-allotment was made and petitioner was given posting in the office of District Collector, Churu but in between first allotment order in the Office of Irrigation Department to the order of re-allotment in the office of District Collector, Churu, the petitioner joined duties in the Irrigation Department and made a prayer that he may be sent back to the Office of the District Collector in pursuance of the re-allotment made by the Government but Chief Engineer without considering the fact that the petitioner has been reallotted to the office of District Collector, Churu asked the petitioner to file resignation and without filing resignation, it is ordered that the petitioner will not be relieved. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such restriction was to be imposed by the Chief Engineer because the petitioner was duly selected candidate through RPSC and although he was given posting in the Irrigation Department and in compelling circumstances for the purpose of relieving he filed an application that his resignation to join duties at Collectrate, Churu in pursuance of the re-allotment order but it cannot be said that the petitioner has waived his right to join as Stenographer Grade II in the office of District Collector, Churu. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of relieving the fact of filing an application for resignation was disclosed in the relieving order dated 08.04.1981 by the Assistant Engineer and the resignation letter was also forwarded to the District Collector, Churu while observing that the petitioner is relieved in pursuance of the order dated 21.2.1981 of Department of Personnel for re-allotment in the Office of District Collector, Churu. In this view of the matter, once the petitioner was re-alloted to the office of District Collector, Churu by the DOP then there was no occasion for the petitioner to file resignation but the petitioner was compelled by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to file resignation for the purpose of relieving from the office of Irrigation Department. In this view of the matter, once the petitioner was re-alloted to the office of District Collector, Churu by the DOP then there was no occasion for the petitioner to file resignation but the petitioner was compelled by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to file resignation for the purpose of relieving from the office of Irrigation Department. In this view of the matter, if any resignation application was filed by the petitioner under the orders of the higher authorities of the Irrigation Department that cannot be treated to be a voluntary action of the petitioner. The purpose of filing application for resignation was only to get relieving order to join in the office of District Collector, Churu in pursuance of the re-allotment order dated 21.2.1981 passed by Department of Personnel, Jaipur to join as Stenographer Grade-II in the office of District Collector, Churu. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in this case the charge-sheet which is issued to the petitioner is totally baseless because the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Stenographer Grade II by the RPSC and earlier he was allotted for appointment in the Office of Irrigation Department and later on re-allotment order dated 21.2.1981 was made and in place of Irrigation Department he was given appointment in the office of District Collector, Churu and if any application is said to be filed by the petitioner for the purpose of relieving as directed by the higher authorities of Irrigation Department that cannot be treated to be a voluntary resignation from the service. Further, even if it is accepted that the petitioner filed resignation application then there is no order on record to prove the fact that the resignation application filed by the petitioner was accepted. Therefore, in absence of the acceptance letter by the respondents, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner resigned. Further, even if it is accepted that the petitioner filed resignation application then there is no order on record to prove the fact that the resignation application filed by the petitioner was accepted. Therefore, in absence of the acceptance letter by the respondents, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner resigned. Therefore, the charge-sheet which is based upon the concocted and self-contained allegations deserves to be quashed because the petitioner was allowed to join as Stenographer Grade II in the office of the District Collector, Churu by the District Collector, Churu himself for the reasons that the petitioner was reallotted to the Office of District Collector by the Department of Personnel and now after 15 years when petitioner has been allowed selection scale and working on the post of Stenographer Grade II can be charge-sheeted on the ground that he has concealed the fact of filing application for resignation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that such type of charges levelled against the petitioner are totally baseless and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to proceed in the matter because as per the record of the case, no charge is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra, learned Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not disputed the factum of filing application for resignation and asking that charge-sheet may be quashed but said charge-sheet cannot be quashed because the petitioner himself is accepting that the application for resignation was filed by him and this fact was not disclosed by him when he joined in the Office of District Collector, Churu. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Further, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet and appointment of enquiry officer that too is not permissible under the law because the competent authority is having jurisdiction to initiate the departmental enquiry if it is found that the employee has committed misconduct. 12. Further, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet and appointment of enquiry officer that too is not permissible under the law because the competent authority is having jurisdiction to initiate the departmental enquiry if it is found that the employee has committed misconduct. Here in this case, the petitioner himself is not disputing that the application for resignation was filed then obviously the misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the charge-sheet was rightly given to the petitioner for initiating enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is worthwhile to observe that competent authority is having all the rights to initiate enquiry against the employees if he has committed any misconduct. Further, under the CCA Rules, major and miner penalty can be inflicted after holding due enquiry and in this case for the purpose of penalising the petitioner, chargesheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules has been issued in which certain allegation are levelled against the petitioner with regard to committing fraud with the State Government. 14. I have perused the impugned charge-sheet and considered the documents placed on record for perusal of the Court. Upon perusal of the facts and documents annexed with this writ petition, it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC in the Office of District Collector, Churu, while in service, the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination conducted by RPSC for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade II in which he was found suitable and was selected and Commission recommended his name to the Department of Personnel for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade II. 15. The petitioner was allotted to the Irrigation Department for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade II and in pursuance of the allotment made by the DOP, the petitioner was provided appointment by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department and he was given posting at Chandigarh vide order dated 13.2.1981. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined his duties in the office of the Irrigation Department but later on when re-allotment order was passed on 21.2.1981 by the Department of Personnel then the petitioner made a request to relieve him to join in the Office of District Collector, Churu. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined his duties in the office of the Irrigation Department but later on when re-allotment order was passed on 21.2.1981 by the Department of Personnel then the petitioner made a request to relieve him to join in the Office of District Collector, Churu. Meaning thereby, after passing order of reallotment dated 21.2.1981 by the Department of Personnel, Jaipur, the authorities of the Irrigation Department were under obligation to relieve the petitioner to join in the office of the District Collector, Churu but instead of relieving the petitioner, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer to first obtain resignation from the petitioner then he may be relieved. It is very strange that after re-allotment there was right created in favor of the petitioner to join in the Office of the District Collector, Churu then how such direction was issued for obtaining resignation from the petitioner. The simple question was to relieve the petitioner in pursuance of the re-allotment order dated 21.2.1981 but instead of relieving the petitioner a rider was imposed upon the petitioner to file resignation. The petitioner in pursuance of the said direction issued by the Irrigation Department filed an application that he may be relieved to join in the office of the District Collector and for that purpose he filed his resignation. After filing the said application, the relieving order was issued by the Assistant Engineer on 08.04.1981 in which it is specifically observed that the petitioner is hereby relieved in pursuance of the order dated 21.2.1981 passed by the Department of Personnel to join in the Office of the District Collector and further it is observed that the petitioner has filed an application for resignation, meaning thereby till issuance of the order dated 21.2.1981 and joining in the Office of District Collector, Churu on 09.04.1981, the so called resignation application was not accepted by any of the authority and petitioner was allowed to join in the Office of District Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the Department of Personnel on 21.2.1981. In my opinion, even if it is presumed that the petitioner filed an application for resignation in compelling circumstances to get relieving order then also it cannot be said that his resignation was accepted and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the Office of the District Collector. 16. In my opinion, even if it is presumed that the petitioner filed an application for resignation in compelling circumstances to get relieving order then also it cannot be said that his resignation was accepted and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the Office of the District Collector. 16. It is very strange that the petitioner was working in the office of the District Collector from last 13 years prior to initiating enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and was granted selection scale and later on, the impugned charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner in which it is alleged that he has not disclosed that the resignation application was filed by him to obtain relieving order. Thus, from any angle no misconduct is committed by the petitioner for which he can be charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 17. The above opinion is based upon these reasons:- (1) There was no occasion for the petitioner to file any resignation application in view of the order of re-allotment dated 21.2.1981 but he was compelled by the authorities of the Irrigation Department to file resignation application to get relieving order to join in the office of the District Collector, Churu. (2) Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has filed an application for resignation then also it cannot be said that the resignation application was accepted by the competent authority because there is no order on record to prove that the application for resignation filed by the petitioner was accepted. (3) It is obvious from the relieving order dated 08.04.1981 (Annexure-10) that a specific assertion was made by the Assistant Engineer that the petitioner is hereby relieved to join in the office of the District Collector, Churu in pursuance of the order passed by Department of Personnel dated 21.2.1981 by which the petitioner was re-allotted from the Office of District Collector and relieving order was forwarded to the office of the District Collector, Churu in which fact of filing an application for resignation was disclosed, then how it can be said that the petitioner has concealed the fact of filing application for resignation. 4. 4. The petitioner was not only allowed to join the duties as Stenographer Grade II in the Office of District Collector but later on he was granted selection scale and after 13 years District Collector, Churu himself rectified his mistake and passed formal order of appointment on 4.3.1994. 18. Now, at this stage, the impugned charge-sheet has been issued in which the allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he has concealed the fact of filing resignation and committed fraud with the State. In my opinion, no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. All the facts were brought to the notice in the relieving order to the District Collector, Churu when the petitioner joined his duties in the Office of District Collector. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the impugned charge-sheet issued against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules is not justified, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 17/22.10.1996 (Annexure-21) issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******