Birbal Ram Saran vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The Petitioner, who appears to be working in the Public Health Engineering Department (''PHED'') at Sardar Shahar, has filed this writ petition essentially stating the grievance against the conduct of the Respondent No. 2, said to be working as Pump Sanchalak-II in the same Department.

The Petitioner has made narration of several facts, said to be of criminality of conduct of the Respondent No. 2; and it is submitted that various criminal cases have been registered and complaints lodged against the Respondent No. 2 but he continues with his appalling and foul activities for want of proper proceedings by the authorities concerned. It is also submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has physically assaulted the Petitioner and has given him threats whereby the Petitioner is apprehensive of danger to his life and property at the hands of the Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that several of the officers have sent various communications to the higher authorities and the Petitioner himself has sent a number of representations to the authorities concerned but no action has been initiated against the Respondent No. 2 and thereby, the Respondent No. 2 is encouraged in commission of series of offences against PHED employees, is creating hindrances in performing their official duties, and has created an atmosphere of terror amongst the employees and the officials. This apart, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 is also involved in several of the scams in the department. With such allegations and submissions, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to take suitable action against the Respondent No. 2.

B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to take necessary departmental and lawful action to remove the atmosphere of terror created by the Respondent No. 2 in PHED, Sadar Sahar.

C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to make a detailed enquiry into how and under whose shelter the Respondent No. 2 acting and dealing with the officials/employees in a rude and arrogant manner.

D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

E/ Writ petition filed by the Petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.

The Respondents have filed a reply raising objection against very competence of this writ petition and entitlement of the Petitioner to take up the cause against the Respondent No. 2 by way of this writ petition. However, the Respondents have pointed out that the proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 have already been initiated.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Department and the other authorities have failed to take appropriate steps against the Respondent No. 2 despite repeated complaints; and the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.

For the facts as stated and grounds as urged by the Petitioner, there appears no reason to consider exercising writ jurisdiction in this matter at the instance of the Petitioner.

The submissions about violation of fundamental rights remain rather misplaced. From the material placed on record, it appears that the cases have duly been registered against the Respondent No. 2 by the concerned authorities including the police and Executive Magistrate; and it has also been pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings have been taken by the department. When the authorities have been acting in accordance with law, the Petitioner cannot be acceded an independent right to seek parallel proceedings against the Respondent No. 2 by way of this writ petition. Merely by making certain complaints against Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner cannot be considered entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction and to seek enquiry into the matters that are already pending before the competent Court/Authorities.

Apart from the above, issuance of any direction in this matter would require enquiry into several of the factual aspects; and such an enquiry cannot be made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Of course, this Court is not making any comments on the merits of the case and the Petitioner is free to take recourse to regular remedies available in law but there appears no reason or justification to exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of the Petitioner in this matter.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.