Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1632 (RAJ)

Charan Singh v. JVVN Ltd. , Jodhpur

2012-07-26

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - As a consequent to process of selection conducted by the respondents as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Technical Workmen Regulations, 1975, an appointment was accorded to the petitioner as Technical Helper (Probationer Trainee) with Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur by an order dated 20.4.2010. Under the order dated 12.5.2010 the petitioner was posted in the office of Assistant Engineer (O&M), Srivijaynagar District Sriganganagar. After getting the services joined by an order dated 29.6.2010 the Superintending Engineer (O&M), Sriganganagar terminated the petitioner from service being no more required in view of unsatisfactory character report received from the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar. In the order of termination dated 29.6.2010 the Superintending Engineer referred two criminal cases being No.556 dated 3.12.2004 and 557 dated 3.12.2004. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2010 the petitioner filed a petition for writ before this Court (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5858/2010) with assertion that the State Government decided to withdraw the cases registered against the petitioner as those were outcome of a peasant agitation and the decision was sought to be reviewed by way of filing an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but no such review was allowed by the competent court and the petitioner was discharged from the alleged criminal charges vide orders dated 3.12.2009, as such no reason was there to pass the order impugned. A Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition in limine with following observations: "The petitioner is, therefore, relegated to the respondent-authorities and he may make a representation along with copy of Government Orders and satisfy the respondent No.2 that no criminal case is/are pending against him, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn for removing him from the services. The respondent No.2 is expected to verify such facts of case with Superintendent of Police, and if it is found that criminal cases against the petitioner have been withdrawn by the State Government, then fresh and appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law revoking the impugned order dated 29.6.2010. However, if any adverse order is still passed against the petitioner with reasons, the petitioner would be free to avail the remedy available to him under the law against such adverse order." 2. In pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2010 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintending Engineer (O&M), Jodhpur Discom, Sriganganagar, but of no consequence. However, if any adverse order is still passed against the petitioner with reasons, the petitioner would be free to avail the remedy available to him under the law against such adverse order." 2. In pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2010 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintending Engineer (O&M), Jodhpur Discom, Sriganganagar, but of no consequence. After waiting for a substantial time this petition for writ has been filed with following prayers: "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of petitioner filed on the basis of this Hon'ble Court order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure-14); (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to pass fresh and appropriate orders in accordance with law revoking the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 (Annex.12) and restored the services of the petitioner on the post of Technical Helper (Probation Trainee) with all consequential benefits; (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may be deemed just and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. This Court vide order dated 18.3.2011 issued notices to the respondents. No reply to the writ petition has been filed so far. 4. Having considered narrow amplitude of the controversy involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to finally hear and dispose of this petition for writ at admission stage. 5. Heard counsel for the parties.At the threshold it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the observations made by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5858/2010, that came to be disposed of on 7.7.2010 6. I am not inclined to accept the contention in view of the fact that in pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2010 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintending Engineer (O&M) long back but no decision thereon is yet taken. To relegate the petitioner again for getting his representation decided shall be nothing but further extension of agony already suffered. 7. It is not in dispute that the appointment was accorded to the petitioner on probation and his services came to be terminated on the count that he suffered two criminal cases. To relegate the petitioner again for getting his representation decided shall be nothing but further extension of agony already suffered. 7. It is not in dispute that the appointment was accorded to the petitioner on probation and his services came to be terminated on the count that he suffered two criminal cases. The petitioner has placed on record certified copies of the judgments passed by the competent court discharging him from the charges alleged. This fact clearly depicts that the petitioner as a matter of fact was not at all subjected to any criminal trial. Mere lodging of criminal cases, those ultimately resulted into discharge, cannot be a reason for termination from service. The respondents as a matter of fact should have asked the petitioner before taking penal action about the cases referred in the verification report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. On asking the petitioner would have clarified about his discharge from the criminal charges. Instead of taking such a fair action the respondents proceeded to pass the order terminating the petitioner from service which is highly unjust and arbitrary. 8. The petition for writ for the reasons given above deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Superintending Engineer (O&M), Jodhpur Discom, Sriganganagar is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.No order to costs.Petition allowed. *******