Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2103 (RAJ)

Satya Prakash Gautam v. State of Rajasthan

2018-10-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
JUDGMENT ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2017 (Annex.-8) and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet. Further relief has been claimed for releasing the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 07.10.1978 in the respondent-Department, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 26.08.2013. It is claimed that during the entire service career, the petitioner never suffered any punishment. 2. On 07.05.2016, it claimed that the petitioner received a call from the then Executive Engineer for lodging an FIR against one agriculturist and also to inspect the site as the petitioner was holding additional charge of the place in question. It is claimed that the charge with the petitioner was only to the extent of disbursing of the salary and not for any other purpose, which was informed by the petitioner to the then Executive Engineer and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner was made Awaiting Posting Order (APO) and was asked to report for his duty at Jaipur, for which, he was relieved on 01.08.2016. 3. On 17.08.2016, the petitioner moved an application for changing his headquarter as he was due to retire within a period of five months and was suffering from various ailments. For the said purpose, when the requisite file was sent to the office of Minister concerned, he directed that first charge-sheet be issued to the petitioner. On 03.01.2017, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein it was indicated that the Minister concerned was to visit the site when the petitioner was not present and, therefore, he was asked to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings may not be taken against him. 4. The petitioner gave a response to the show cause notice, inter alia, indicating that the additional charge given to him was confined to disbursement/payment of salary and that there was no requirement to undertake any other work even as he was already holding charge of two more posts. The communication regarding the visit of the Minister was denied and it was prayed that the show cause notice may be dropped. 5. The communication regarding the visit of the Minister was denied and it was prayed that the show cause notice may be dropped. 5. On 31.01.2017 i.e. the date of retirement, a photocopy of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules') was issued to the petitioner alleging delinquency, no date pertaining to the incident was specified and it is claimed that the charge-sheet itself was vague and it was not accompanied by the list of witnesses/documents etc., even details of statement of allegations were not annexed. 6. The petitioner submitted an application dated 10.02.2017 for providing him the details of programme of the Minister, which was not provided to the petitioner, despite approaching two authorities. 7. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 08.09.2017. It was alleged that despite passage of sufficiently long time, nothing was done on part of the respondents and the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld due to pendency of the alleged inquiry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments of the writ petition would clearly reveal that the charge-sheet was a colourable exercise of power on part of the persons concerned and was issued only with a view to victimize and harass the petitioner, which is evident from the fact that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the last date of service despite issuance of No Dues Certificate certifying that no inquiry was pending against the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare look at the documents annexed with the writ petition would reveal that by order dated 04.05.2016 (Annex.-7), the petitioner was given the charge only for the purpose of disbursement of salary and the charge-sheet issued, pertains to the alleged failure of duty other than disbursement of salary, for which, the petitioner was not responsible in any manner. 9. Further submissions have been made that the charge-sheet specifically makes reference pertaining to the statement of allegations annexed therewith, however, the petitioner was not supplied with any such statement of allegations and the charge-sheet was absolutely vague and, therefore, the same was liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on Sukhraj Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, (1988) 2 RLW 432; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Another. Reliance was placed on Sukhraj Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, (1988) 2 RLW 432; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Another. v. Madanlal Tandon, (2015) 8 SCC 461 ; Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Another., (2011) 14 SCC 379 and Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and Others., (2013) 6 SCC 515 . 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was, inter alia, submitted that the writ petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet was not maintainable. The petitioner has filed the reply to the charge-sheet and it is for the inquiry officer only to look into the merit of the allegations and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. Pertaining to the specific allegation with regard to the charge-sheet in question not being accompanied by the requisite documents, it was submitted that the material supplied to the petitioner is sufficient and nothing turns on the said allegations. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 11. When the matter came up for admission before the Court, by order dated 12.12.2017, further proceedings before the inquiry officer pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2017 was stayed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. At the outset, the office order dated 04.05.2016 needs to be noticed, by which the petitioner was assigned the work of Sub Division II (16th Division), IGNP Burji 855, which reads as under:- ^^dk;kZy; vkns'k Jh ,l lh 'kqDyk lgk;d vfHk;Urk mi[k.M &2 ¼nk'kk[k&2½ izfu 16okW [k.M bxkui MsyhrykbZ tks fnukad 13-04-2016 ls miftZr vodk'k ij py jgs gSa ftlds ikl lgk;d vfHk;Urk mi[k.M &2 ¼16okW [k.M½ bxkui cqthZ 855 dk Hkh pktZ FkkA vr% mDr nksuksa dk;kZy; ds osru vkgj.k ,oa forj.k dk dk;Z bl [k.M ds v/khu dk;Zjr Jh lR; izdk'k xkSre lgk;d vfHk;Urk ,sfj;j lsy 16okW [k.M bxkui chdkusj dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vius dk;Z ds vfrfjDr mDr nksuksa dk;kZy; dk osru vkgj.k gsrq vfxze vkns'kksa rd yxk;k tkrk gSA^^ 14. A perusal of the above order would indicate that the petitioner, who was Assistant Engineer, Arrear Cell, 16th Division, IGNP, Bikaner was directed to look after the disbursement of salary of two other Sub Divisions and that his work was confined to disbursement of salary only. The charge leveled against the petitioner vide the charge-sheet reads as under:- ^^vkjksi ;g fd vki Jh lR;izdk'k xkSre lgk;d vfHk;Urk ,fj;j lS 16okW [k.M] baxkauia] chdkusj esa lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds in ij fnukad 23-08-2013 ls 02-08-2016 rd dk;Zjr jgrs gq, v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] f}rh; pj.k o`r izFke] baxkauia] chdkusj ds vkns'k Øekad 436&44 fnukad 04-05-2016 }kjk Jh ,l-lh- 'kqDyk lgk;d vfHk;Urk mi[k.M&2] ¼MhchMh&2½ iz'kklfud 16oka [k.M] baxkauia Msyh rykbZ ftuds ikl lgk;d vfHk;Urk mi[k.M f}rh; 16oka [k.M] baxkauia] cqthZ 855 dk vfrfjDr dk;Z Hkkj gksus ,oa Jh 'kqDyk }kjk 13-04-2016 ls mikftZr vodk'k ij izLFkku djus ds QyLo:i vkidks vius dk;Z ds vfrfjDr mDr nksuksa mi[k.Mksa dk;kZy;ksa ds osru vkgj.k gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA blh vof/k ds nkSjku ekuuh; ugj ea=h ds mDr lkbZV Hkze.k ds dk;ZØe gsrq vkidks rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk eksckbZy@nwjHkk"k ij lkbZV ekSds ij mifLFkfr gksus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk ysfdu vki }kjk eksckbZy Qksu ij gh vf/kdkjh dks Li"V euk dj fn;k x;k ,oa ekSds ij mifLFkr ugha gq, ftlls mPp vf/kdkjh ,oa ekuuh; ea=h egksn; }kjk xaHkhjrk ls fy;k x;k tks vki }kjk vius dÙkZO; ,oa mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk ,oa vkKk ds mYya?ku djus dk |ksrd gSaA tks fd xaHkhj ykijokgh dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSA ftlds fy, vki mRrjnk;h gSA tSlk dh vfHkdFku ds fooj.k i= esa vafdr gSA^^ 15. A perusal of the above charge would indicate that it was specifically indicated therein that the petitioner was assigned the work of disbursement of salary of the two Sub Divisions and that during the said period during the site visit of the Minister, the petitioner was directed to remain present at the site, however, the petitioner point bank refused and did not remain present at the site, which was taken seriously by the higher authorities and the Minister, which amounts to dereliction of duty, for which he was liable and it was specifically indicated therein that the same was indicated in the statement of allegations. From the above two extracts i.e. the work assigned to the petitioner as well as the charge-sheet, it is apparent that the duty assigned to the petitioner was confined to disbursement of salary of two Sub Divisions besides the work, which he was already undertaking and, therefore, there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of the petitioner to remain present at the site only because of the visit of the concerned Minister, on face of the above assignment of duty was beyond such assignment. The allegation made in the charge-sheet, pertains to denial by the petitioner to remain present during the visit of the Minister, the charge does not indicate as to whether at all the Minister visited the site and the specific queries made by the petitioners in this regard have gone un-anwered. 16. Therefore, from the above material, it is apparent that the petitioner has been charged with dereliction of duty qua the assignment, for which he was apparently was not at all responsible. 17. Besides the above, the charge itself is absolutely vague, inasmuch as, mere denial of the petitioner to work beyond the assignment made to him cannot be termed as dereliction of duty in absence of any consequence of such dereliction, inasmuch as, it is not indicated in the charge as to whether the Minister at all visited the site, which renders the entire charge-sheet against the petitioner as vague. Besides the above, the charge-sheet contains a specific endorsement regarding the same being accompanied by statement of charges, the petitioner made a specific allegation in para-8 of the writ petition that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the list of witnesses and the of documents, upon which reliance was to be placed and not only this, details of statement of allegations was also not annexed. 18. In response to the said para-8 of the writ petition, in para-7 of the reply on behalf of the respondent No.1, there is no response to the said factual averment and in fact there is no denial at all regarding the said allegation about the charge-sheet not being accompanied by statement of allegations. 19. It is trite law that when an employee is facing disciplinary proceedings, he is entitled to be afforded with a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. 19. It is trite law that when an employee is facing disciplinary proceedings, he is entitled to be afforded with a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. If the copies of the documents are not supplied to the employee concerned, it would be difficult for him to prepare for his defence and to point out inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are false or baseless. 20. In the present case, the petitioner was not supplied any document whatsoever and despite reference of statement of allegations in the charge-sheet, even the same was not delivered to the petitioner. 21. So far as the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition raised by the respondents is concerned, it is well settled that the charges must be specific and give the details, which forms the basis of charges and no inquiry can be sustained on vague charges. 22. As already noticed hereinbefore, the entire inquiry, is sought to be conducted on absolutely vague charges, and such a vague charge-sheet has been issued on the last date of the retirement of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that no documents whatsoever including the statement of allegations was supplied to the petitioner, which can but be alleged as malafide and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained on any count. 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 31.01.2017 (Annex.-8), issued to the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law along with interest in terms of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 on the amount found due as retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner be paid his retiral benefits with interest in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.