Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

Suresh Chandra Kataria v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 11.05.2018 aggrieved against the enquiry report (Annex.13), order dated 01.03.2008 (Annex.16) and order dated 02.12.2008 (Annex.18), whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the charges by the inquiry officer, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed by the disciplinary authority and appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority. Whereafter, though not challenged the review petition dated 02.01.2018 filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Governor on 02.02.2018 (Annex.20) as barred by limitation. 2. The petitioner when he was posted as Patwari, was issued a charge-sheet dated 19.01.2007 regarding dereliction in duties under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958'). The petitioner applied for certain documents, which was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to peruse the record and get the copies. 3. By order dated 23.03.2007, the enquiry officer was appointed; the petitioner was permitted to take services of another officer as his representative before the enquiry officer; statements were recorded by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer by his report dated 29.09.2007 found petitioner guilty of charge, which led to passing of order of punishment, which was upheld in the appeal by order dated 02.12.2008. 4. It appears that the petitioner did not question the imposition of punishment after the appeal was rejected on 02.12.2008, however, filed review petition on 02.01.2018 after more than 9 years seeking condonation of delay based on receipt of some documents in the year 2015 under Right to Information Act, which review petition was also rejected by order dated 02.02.2018 (Annex.20) and present writ petition has been filed on 11.05.2018. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of punishment against the petitioner was not justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not supplied the documents and from the material, which was procured by the petitioner in the year 2015, it is apparent that the petitioner was punished for giving an incorrect report, which led to one Jhamku Bai getting the pension, however, the said Jhamku Bai was still getting pension and her order granting pension was not revoked, which clearly shows that the petitioner had not committed any mistake and therefore, the orders deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 6. 6. When the counsel was asked as to how the orders passed in the year 2008 could be challenged by filing the petition after ten years, it was submitted that when the petitioner got certain information under Right to Information Act in the year 2015, he filed a review petition and as the review petition was rejected on 02.02.2018, the present writ petition has been filed on 11.05.2018. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. At the outset, it may be noticed that though the review petition filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by order dated 02.02.2018 (Annex.20) as barred by limitation, the petitioner has not questioned the validity of the said order. Once the petitioner has not challenged the order on review and its rejection as barred by limitation is accepted by the petitioner, the petitioner possibly cannot plead any reason for delay in challenging the orders impugned by way of present writ petition. 9. In so far as, the challenge laid to the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are concerned, the orders have passed way-back on 01.03.2008 and 02.12.2008 i.e. ten years back, the petitioner did not question the validity of said orders at the relevant time and thereafter in the year 2018 filed a review petition on 02.01.2018, wherein also the reason for delay indicated was obtaining documents under Right to Information Act in the year 2015. Even if the said plea is taken on its face value, no reason was / has been indicated for filing a review petition after three years once the document was obtained in the year 2015. The entire conduct of the petitioner is that of latches on his part. 10. In the entire petition, not a single word has been indicated seeking to explain the delay of over ten years in questioning the validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 11. In view of the above unexplained delay and latches, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 12. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.