Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 253 (RAJ)

Government of Rajasthan v. Ratan Prakash Darji

2020-01-28

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this judgment, above-mentioned two appeals would be disposed of. 2. Respondent joined as Accountant with the appellant-State on 01.11.1977. After his confirmation, respondent was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer vide order dated 08.10.1990. Order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was passed on 21.09.2000. Respondent challenged the said order before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2009. Hence, respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3985/2012 challenging order of his compulsory retirement. 3. Another order dated 31.12.1999 was passed against the respondent, whereby his two annual grade increments without cumulative effect were stopped and salary for suspension period was forfeited. In appeal, the appellate authority upheld the punishment order vide order dated 18.12.2002. Hence, respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1180/2013. 4. Both the writ petitions filed by the respondent were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 26.07.2016. Hence, present appeals by the appellant-State. 5. We have heard learned State counsel, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through record available on the file carefully. 6. So far as the order dated 31.12.1999, whereby penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary of suspension period passed by the appellants against the respondent is concerned, the argument raised by State counsel that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about eleven years is without any force. Order, whereby, two annual grade increments of the respondent were stopped without cumulative effect was passed on 31.12.1999 and appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the appellate authority on 18.12.2002. In the meantime, order dated 21.09.2000 was passed, whereby, respondent was compulsorily retired from service. 7. Appeal filed by the respondent challenging order dated 31.12.1999 was also to be heard on 23.09.2000. However, the said appeal was adjourned sine die. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the said fact was evident from communication dated 11.09.2000 addressed to the respondent and the same was placed on record as Annexure-42 in Writ Petition No. 1180/2013. Thus, in view of the said factual background, learned Single Judge rightly held that the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments could not be dismissed on account of delay and latches. 8. Thus, in view of the said factual background, learned Single Judge rightly held that the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments could not be dismissed on account of delay and latches. 8. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that from the material on record, respondent had been adjudged as an outstanding officer by Shri R.K. Singh, the successor Joint Director for the year 1996-97, whereas, Smt. Seema Shrivastava, the earlier Joint Director, had assessed the respondent as unsatisfactory in all the twenty columns of the Annual Confidential Reports. It has also been noticed that in a communication addressed by the successor Joint Director to the Director, it was pointed out that the action initiated against the respondent was uncalled and it was also pointed out that there was rampant corruption in the department. In this regard, reference was made by the learned Single Judge to part of the communication dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure-4 attached with Writ Petition No. 1180/2013). Affidavit executed by Shri R.K. Singh, Special Officer, Directorate of Treasury and Accounts Department, Rajasthan was also reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. It has been further noticed by the learned Single Judge that Smt. Seema Shrivastava had failed to respond and send her comments despite reminders during enquiry. Witnesses examined during enquiry proceedings admitted that there was rampant corruption in the Directorate. The audit report submitted by the audit party headed by the respondent was approved by the then Joint Director, Smt. Seema Shrivastava on 01.08.1996 but an objection was raised that ten days more time had been taken, which had resulted in revenue loss of Rs. 15,000/-. However, Shri R.K. Singh, the successor Joint Director did not agree with the said objection. 10. Charges were levelled against the respondent with regard to the audit conducted by the audit party headed by the respondent. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the documents were merely placed on record before the enquiry officer and had neither been tendered, nor any witness had been examined to prove the documents. The enquiry officer found that no loss of Rs. 15,000/- had been caused to the department. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the documents were merely placed on record before the enquiry officer and had neither been tendered, nor any witness had been examined to prove the documents. The enquiry officer found that no loss of Rs. 15,000/- had been caused to the department. Charge leveled against the respondent that he had failed to maintain diary as per circular issued in the year 1958, was also not proved as the daily diary had been duly maintained by the respondent. The same were placed on record as Annexure-6 to Annexure-13 attached with Writ Petition No. 1180/2013. All the said reports were proved by the appellants. 11. Charge levelled against the respondent that in spite of demanding information vide communications dated 20.01.1996, 23.04.1996, 09.05.1996 and 31.05.1996, the information was not furnished, was also not proved, as the star witness in this regard Smt. Seema Shrivastava, Joint Director had not stated anything in this regard while appearing as a witness. 12. Another charge levelled against the respondent was that the period of audit objection was extended by the respondent on his own, contrary to the telephonic instructions. However, when the audit proceedings were submitted by the respondent for approval, no lapse was pointed out. Moreover, star witness, Smt. Seema Shrivastava, the then Joint Director had not deposed anything in this regard that any telephonic instructions were given to the respondent and breach of those instructions had been committed by the respondent at the time of extending the time of audit inspection. 13. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and suffered from vice of malice and non-application of mind on account of bias and prejudice against the respondent, as he had raised voice against rampant corruption in the department. 14. During pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments, he was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 21.09.2000. Appeal filed by the respondent was decided by the appellate authority on 18.12.2002. Hence, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the initiation of departmental proceedings against the respondent and penalty imposed on him was with a view to victimise him, as he had raised issue of rampant corruption in the department. 15. Appeal filed by the respondent was decided by the appellate authority on 18.12.2002. Hence, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the initiation of departmental proceedings against the respondent and penalty imposed on him was with a view to victimise him, as he had raised issue of rampant corruption in the department. 15. It has been further noticed by the learned Single Judge that out of 493 employees, only case of the respondent was singled out for compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Entire service record of the respondent was not made available to the Screening Committee at the time of recommendation of the respondent for compulsory retirement. Thus, the opinion of the Screening Committee that in public interest, respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired was not substantiated as contemplated under Rule 53 of the Rules. Respondent was not paid three months' notice pay and allowances in compliance of Rule 53 of the Rules. Payment was made to the respondent on 03.09.2003, as reflected in Annexure-32 attached with Writ Petition No. 3985/2012. 16. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that as per Rule 53(1) of the Rules, a Government servant could be compulsorily retired on completion of fifteen years of qualifying service or attaining age of 50 years in public interest, if the Government servant had lost its utility on account of indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence to discharge official duties or insufficiency in due performance of official duties. The appointing authority, while exercising Rule 53(1) of the Rules, was obliged to record reasons to satisfy itself that the order under Rule 53(1) of the Rules was required to be passed. Respondent had served the appellant-State for 23 years and had never been imposed any major penalty, except one minor penalty, regarding which respondent had filed Writ Petition No. 1180/2012. Grievance raised by respondent that there was rampant corruption in the department was confirmed by Shri R.K. Singh, Joint Director, who had succeeded Smt. Seema Shrivastava, the then Joint Director. 17. In the factual background of this case, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent was mala fide and had been passed, as the respondent had raised his voice against rampant corruption in the department. 18. 17. In the factual background of this case, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent was mala fide and had been passed, as the respondent had raised his voice against rampant corruption in the department. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge had elaborately considered all the material produced before it and thus, rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent. 19. No ground for interference is made out. 20. Dismissed. However, part of the impugned orders, whereby costs of Rs. 20,000/- were imposed on the appellant-State by the learned Single Judge, are set aside.