Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 461 (RAJ)

Rakesh Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-12

VINEET KOTHARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner working as Executive Engineer, in the respondent Public Works Department (PWD), is aggrieved by the issuance of the charge-sheet against him vide Annex.1 dated 30.08.2010 for the alleged irregularities pointed out against him in the Audit objections with regard to some contracts executed under his supervision way back in the year 1991 about 20 years back. 2. Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of peculiar facts of the case that even the audit paras themselves, on the reply furnished by the PWD, came to be dropped vide the communication (Annex.5) dated 19.05.2011, therefore, there remained no justification for continuing the enquiry against the petitioner. But, on the contrary, the respondents directed the said enquiry to be clubbed with other two persons vide order Annex.9 dated 30.04.2012. He also pointed out that by an exparte interim order granted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 19.07.2012, the proceedings in the enquiry have been stayed. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have justified the enquiry and have urged that at this stage, interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not called for as the matter is still pending before the respondent- Department. However, nothing specific has been pointed out in the said reply about the audit paras being dropped on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.K. Mathur, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr. reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738 and urged that even the charge sheet issued after the delay of 12 years, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the charge sheet holding that such enquiry at a highly belated stage for the alleged charges pertaining to an event of 12 years period prior to the said initiation of the disciplinary action was not justified. He submitted that in the present case, the alleged events are about 20 years old and that too on the basis of audit objections, which themselves, have been withdrawn by the Audit Department on the basis of explanation given by the PWD itself and, therefore, the pending enquiry against the petitioner will only go to cause prejudice to him for consideration his case for further promotion for which the DPC is likely to meet shortly. 5. Mr. Mukesh Dave, learned Dy. Govt. counsel for the respondents, however, justified the pendency of the said enquiry and opposed the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though normally this Court would not interfere with the initiation of the disciplinary actions against the Government servants on the basis of charge sheet, which may be well founded, however, the present case appears to be a glaring example of digging out of the past for the alleged supervisory negligence of the petitioner for the contracts of the period 1991, in relation to the alleged petty financial loss caused to the State, for the paltry sum of Rs. 1971 and Rs. 990/- etc. as would appear from the charge sheet, which charges were levelled solely on the basis of the audit objections. This Court is at loss to understand that with the dropping of the audit paras themselves, vide Annex.5 communication dated 19.05.2011 from the Audit Department of the Government of Rajasthan, how the said charges can be now sustained and why the enquiry should be allowed to proceed further. 7. The very foundation of the framing the charges goes away with the dropping of the audit paras, which was so done on the basis of reply furnished to the Audit objections by the respondent PWD itself, who is holding the said enquiry. The subsequent order Annex.9 dated 30.04.2012 for clubbing the said enquiry against the petitioner and other two persons also does not appear to be justified. Since, the audit paras themselves were dropped, therefore, this is found to be an exceptional case, which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is thus required to be allowed and the same is hereby, accordingly, allowed. The impugned charge sheet (Annex.1) dated 30.08.2010 and the further proceedings in pursuance thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The writ petition is thus required to be allowed and the same is hereby, accordingly, allowed. The impugned charge sheet (Annex.1) dated 30.08.2010 and the further proceedings in pursuance thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******