Kapoor Chand Saini, vs The State of Rajasthan

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the

following prayers:-

"(i) the impugned order dated 25.1.94 Annexure/2 be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the respondents be further directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That any other suitable writ, order or direction that may be deemed expedient under the facts and circumstances of the case be issued.

(iii) Cost of the petition be awarded"

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III after passing due

selection process w.e.f. 10/01/1987. The petitioner''s

employment was terminated vide order dated 25/01/1994

which was served upon him on 02/02/1994. The order of

termination was on the ground that the petitioner had

secured employment on forged degrees/marks-sheets. The

respondents issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on

10/01/1994 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short,

''CCA Rules, 1958'') on the aforementioned charges.

However, without conducting any departmental enquiry or

adopting the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA

Rules, 1958, the respondents issued a questionnaire to the

petitioner dt.12/01/1994 without adopting any further

procedure in accordance with law and in pursuance of the

charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958,

services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated

25/01/1994.

A reply was filed by the respondents stating that the

petitioner obtained B.Ed. Degree by unfair means and

forgery. It was further stated in the reply that the

petitioner had made some changes in the marks-sheet and

the difference was found in the marks mentioned in the

copy of the marks-sheet submitted by the petitioner and

that in the University. It was further submitted that as per

record of the University, the petitioner was declared fail

whereas in his marks-sheet of B.Ed., the petitioner has

shown himself to be pass. The respondents also stated that

the proceedings adopted were lawful and the action taken

was strictly in accordance with law.

This Court is of the opinion that the order impugned

dt.25/01/1994 has been passed without conducting the

procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules,1958.

In the name of the enquiry report, there is only one

questionnaire which is on record and no other enquiry

report has been placed or mentioned by the respondents.

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner refuted

all the charges levelled by the respondents and denied

each one of them categorically while stating that his

marks-sheet was lawful and correct.

This Court is of the opinion that such incomplete

proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, after

serving the memorandum of charges, is completely illegal

and cannot be permissible in law. This Court, therefore,

deems it appropriate to quash the impugned order

dt.25/01/1994 (Ann.2). The respondents are directed to

re-initiate the proceedings strictly in accordance with the

procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958

and complete the enquiry within a period of three months

from the date of order of this Court, after giving

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and adopting the

due process of law. The petitioner be reinstated but all

benefits shall accrue to him only after the disciplinary

authority passes fresh order after adopting the procedure

laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 in

pursuance of the memorandum of charges dt.10/01/1994

(Ann.3) to the writ petition. It is made clear that this order

shall not prejudice the respondents to pass a lawful order

strictly in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of with the

observations/directions indicated above.