Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 654 (RAJ)

Surbhi Pareek D/o Shri Sudhakar Pareek v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

2025-03-06

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
ORDER : 1. Since common facts are involved in all these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, all these petitions are disposed of by this Court by this common order. 2. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2582/2025 has been submitted by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondents to accept her technical resignation for the purpose of joining at the new assignment on the post of Senior Analyst with National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development. 3. The S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.3062/2025 and 3196/2025 have been submitted against the impugned order dated 06.02.2005 passed by the respondents, by which a decision has been taken to re-open the inquiry against the delinquents and the matter afresh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioners wherein an inquiry was conducted against them on certain charges and after conclusion of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has closed the matter by issuing warning to the petitioners to remain careful in future. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was passed by the respondents on 12.12.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner-Surbhi Pareek was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer from the post of Accounts Officer vide order dated 01.02.2024 and the petitioner-Jitendra Makwana was promoted to the post of Chief Accounts Officer form the post of Senior Accounts Officer vide order dated 07.03.2024. Counsel submits that after a lapse of more than a year, the order impugned has been passed being contrary to the provision contained under Regulation 16(3) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Employees (Classification, Control and Appeals) Regulations, 1962 (for short ‘the Regulations of 1962’). Counsel submits that as per the mandate contained under Regulation 16(3) of the Regulations of 1962, no order for fresh inquiry can be issued by the authority after expiry of more than six months. Counsel submits that in the instant case when the order was passed on 12.12.2023, by which only a warning was given to the petitioners for remaining careful in future, there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to pass the impugned order dated 06.02.2025. Counsel submits that a concluded matter cannot be allowed to be reopened at such belated stage. Counsel submits that a concluded matter cannot be allowed to be reopened at such belated stage. Counsel submits that after the aforesaid exercise, the petitioner was selected on the post of Senior Analyst with the National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development and for joining the new assignment and in consequence of which, the petitioners tendered technical resignation, which was not accepted by the respondents, hence, appropriate orders are required to be passed against them. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that a meeting of Public Undertaking Committee (for short ‘PUC’) of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was held on 20.06.2024 and in the said meeting a discussion was done on the audit para No.2.3 of the audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (for short ‘CAG’), wherein the PUC observed that in a matter of embezzlement of more than two crores, most of the defaulter were exonerated by the then Disciplinary Authority by merely issuing the warning and looking to the huge amount of embezzlement and breach of conduct, Rules and office procedures by the defaulters, proper penalties were not imposed on the defaulters as per the gravity of the misconduct. Counsel submits that thereafter, a committee was constituted to re-examine the matter and the committee took a decision to re-open the matter for fresh enquiry and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority were set aside. Counsel submits that the provision contained under Regulation 16(3) cannot be treated as mandatory. If a relaxation is provided to a delinquent seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order of punishment, then certainly, this relaxation can be made available to the authorities also. Counsel submits that looking to the gravity of the matter, the decision was taken on 06.02.2025 to re-open the matter against ten delinquent officers. Counsel submits that so far as the technical resignation furnished by the petitioner-Surbhi Pareek is concerned, the same could not be accepted as the petitioner raised a demand to be relieved on lien with the respondent-Department, as there is no provision of tendering technical resignation with the respondents- authorities. Counsel submits that so far as the technical resignation furnished by the petitioner-Surbhi Pareek is concerned, the same could not be accepted as the petitioner raised a demand to be relieved on lien with the respondent-Department, as there is no provision of tendering technical resignation with the respondents- authorities. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.02.2025 and the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the order dated 17.02.2025 has attained finality, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. This fact is not in dispute that a charge-sheet with several charges was issued to the petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein, an inquiry was conducted whereby the petitioners were found guilty of the said charges. This fact is not in dispute that instead of passing an order for punishment or imposing penalty upon the petitioners, a decision was taken to issue warning to the petitioners to remain careful in future in discharging their duties. This order was passed by the respondents-authorities on 12.12.2023. 8. It appears that an audit was conducted later on by the CAG and report of the same was submitted, wherein an objection was taken in audit para No.2.3 with regard to the huge amount of embezzlement and breach of conduct, rules and office procedure by defaulters and considering the seriousness, the issuance of warning only, was determined to be incorrect, thereafter, a meeting of PUC of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was held on 20.06.2024 and it was directed to conduct a re-inquiry in the matters of embezzlement and in pursuance of the same, a Committee of four members was constituted to re-inquire the matter, which submitted its report and the matter was reviewed and a decision was taken for re-opening the matter against the charge-sheet issued to the ten different delinquents including the petitioners. Looking to the gravity of the matter, a decision was taken by the PUC for conducting a fresh inquiry, as the petitioners were not found to be exonerated in the earlier proceedings, but only a warning was issued to them along with the other delinquent officers. 9. Looking to the gravity of the matter, a decision was taken by the PUC for conducting a fresh inquiry, as the petitioners were not found to be exonerated in the earlier proceedings, but only a warning was issued to them along with the other delinquent officers. 9. This Court finds no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that such order cannot be issued after expiry of six months of passing of earlier order. The provision contained under Regulation 16(3) cannot be treated as mandatory. Looking to the huge amount of embezzlement involved in the matter, a just decision has been taken by the authorities for conducting a fresh inquiry that too after issuing notice to the petitioners and other delinquent officers. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the respondents, which warrants any interference of this Court. 11. So far as the prayer of the petitioner-Surbhi Pareek for issuing directions to the respondents for accepting her resignation is concerned, there is no such provision under the regulations for tendering technical resignation. The respondents have refused to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.2025 and the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner in these petitions and the same has become final. 12. Accordingly, all the instant writ petitions stand dismissed. The stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 13. It goes without saying that no prejudicial order would be passed against the petitioners without following the due process of law.