Dharmender Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the charge sheet dated 15/11/2018 (Annex.1) issued by the Project Director (Housing), Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water, Sewerage & Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Jaipur ('RUDSICO').

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer with the Rajasthan Housing Board and came to be promoted as Project Engineer (Senior). The petitioner was sent on deputation to RUDSICO and performed his duties as Resident Manager from 22/10/2014 to 1/12/2016 and now again the petitioner is working as Project Engineer (Senior), Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.

Reference has been made to the provisions of Rules 6, 12, 14, 15 & 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('CCA Rules, 1958') and a submission has been made that the charge sheet has been issued by the Project Director, RUDSICO, however, the same could only be issued by the disciplinary authority under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, the charge sheet is without jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the charge sheet has been issued by the foreign department and, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Allegations have been made regarding inquiry having been initiated on account of political consideration and, therefore, the charge sheet deserves to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

Though the petitioner has taken trouble to quote in extenso the Rules 6, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the Rules, 1958 in the writ petition to buttress the submission that the charge sheet issued is without jurisdiction, if the petitioner would have taken trouble to go beyond the said rules and read Rule 19-A of the Rules, 1958, the things would be clear that the charge sheet issued is well within the jurisdiction and not without jurisdiction as alleged.

The provision of Rules 19-A reads as under:

"19-A. Provisions regarding officers lent to the Central Government or to a company in the Public Sector or an autonomous body created by an Act of State or Central Legislature.- (1) Where the services of Government servants are lent to :-

(i) The Central Government;

(ii) Any Public sector Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956); or

(iii) Any Autonomous Body created by an Act of State or Central Legislature under the control of the Government (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "Borrowing Authority"). The Borrowing Authority shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of taking a disciplinary proceeding against him:

Provided that the Borrowing Authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent his services (hereafter in this rule referred as the "Lending Authority") of the circumstances leading to order of his suspension or the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be.

(2) In the light of findings in the Disciplinary proceedings taken against the Government Servant -

(i) If the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iii) of rule 14 should be imposed on him, it may, in consultation with the lending authority pass such orders in the case as it deems necessary:

Provided that in the event of a difference of the opinion between the Borrowing Authority and the Lending Authority the services of the Government Servant shall be placed at the disposal of the Lending Authority:

(ii) The Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that any if the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 should be imposed on him, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the Lending Authority and transmit it the proceedings of the enquiry and thereupon the Lending Authority may if it is the Disciplinary Authority, pass such orders as it deems necessary or if it is not the Disciplinary Authority submit the case to the Disciplinary Authority which shall pass such orders in the case as it deems necessary:

Provided that in passing any such order the Disciplinary Authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rule (10) and (11) of Rule 16.

Explanation:-The Disciplinary Authority may make an order under this clause on the record of inquiry transmitted by the Borrowing Authority or after holding such further enquiry as it may deem necessary."

The above provision specifically deals with the officers whose services are lent to other authority and provides that the borrowing authority shall have powers of appointing authority for the purpose of placing the employee under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. Further stipulation has been made regarding imposing the punishment in consultation with lending authority.

In view of the specific provision in the rules empowering the borrowing authority to suspend and/or initiate disciplinary proceedings, the action of the respondent in issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner cannot be faulted.

The very filing of the petition without referring to the provisions of Rule 19-A of the Rules, 1958 itself cannot be appreciated and in fact amounts to misleading the Court while making submissions regarding absence of any provision in this regard in the Rules.

Be that as it may. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.