Laxman Ram Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.1), appointment of inquiry officer vide order dated 10.12.2014 (Annex.11) and seeking a restrain against the respondents to hold further proceedings in the matter with a prayer that the petitioner be absolved from the charges leveled against him.

It is inter alia claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.3.1983, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1996-97 by order dated 12.3.1999. A charge-sheet dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.1) under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner pertaining to certain work, which was executed when the petitioner was posted at Sub-Division of IGNP, Jaisalmer, during the period 28.4.1997 to 8.2.1999.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that a show-cause notice dated 19.12.2005 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation pertaining to damage in the work done from RD 9000 to 10000.

A reply to the show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner denying the charges and indicating that the work was completed perfectly and on account of severe rains after the work was completed, there might be some damage.

The response was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer by the Executive Engineer concurring with the response of the petitioner on finding the response appropriate.

It is then indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 30.7.2013 inter alia reiterating his earlier response. The petitioner has annexed copies of the note-sheets obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein, the Joint Legal Remembrancer opined that the Executive Engineer earlier had sought closing of the case, the vigilance unit had indicated that there was no revenue loss, the matter was 14-15 years old and, therefore, a decision in this regard may be taken.

However, it appears that the administrative department did not agree with the said opinion and insisted in proceeding with the inquiry, resulting in appointment of inquiry officer vide order dated 10.12.2014 (Annex.11).

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of Annex.9 indicates that the Joint Secretary with reference to some other project i.e. Sankal Khera Project, while dealing with the case of the petitioner, did not consider his reply which resulted in appointment of the inquiry officer. It is submitted that the order Annex.9 is a result of non-application of mind and, therefore, the subsequent action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions have been made that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner without application of mind as is evident from the fact that already it was concluded that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged delinquency. It was highlighted that the charge-sheet was issued delayed as the incident pertained to the year 1998 and charge-sheet was issued in the year 2011, which delay, vitiates the action of the respondents and, therefore, on that count alone, the charge-sheet deserves to quashed.

Submissions have also been made that the charge-sheet was issued in the year 2011 and no steps were taken for proceeding with the inquiry, the petitioner filed his response in the year 2013, the inquiry officer was appointed in the year 2014 and for over more than 1½ year, the inquiry officer also did not take any steps, which was not justified and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Reliance was placed on judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan: (1998) 4 SCC 154, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Ors.: 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 and P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board: (2005) 6 SCC 636.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that once the charge-sheet has been issued and reply has been filed by the petitioner, the same must be taken to a logical conclusion and that there is no reason at this stage to quash the charges, which have been leveled against the petitioner. With reference to various documents available on record, it was submitted that once the respondents have come to a conclusion that there was prima facie delinquency on part of the petitioner, the mere fact that the same was rectified by the contractor without charging anything from the department cannot be a reason enough for condoning the delinquency of the petitioner.

Submissions were also made that merely on account of the so-called delay in issuing the charge-sheet, the same does not arm the petitioner for seeking quashing of the same and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Reliance was placed on judgment in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & Ors.: (2010) 13 SCC 311, Union of India & Ors. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana: (2006) 12 SCC 28 and The Secretary, Min. of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha: (2012) 11 SCC 565.

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

A perusal of the record indicates that the facts are not in dispute that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 18.10.2011 pertains to work undertaken by him during the period 28.4.1997 to 8.2.1999 and that when show-cause notice was issued to petitioner in the year 2005, the response given by the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority, however, the matter did not get closed at that stage and remained pending, resulting in, issuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.10.2011.

Once the charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet on 30.7.2013. From the note-sheets produced by the petitioner pertaining to manner, in which, the matter proceeded, indicates that vide Annex.8 dated 22.8.2014, the Chief Engineer, IGNP sent communication to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jaipur indicating the charges levelled against the petitioner, the comments offered by the Executive Engineer, IGNP and made recommendation that the matter be filed i.e. closed. The relevant portion reads as under:-

"प्राप्त जॉच रिपोर्ट को अतिरिक्त मुख्य अभियन्ता, सतर्कता, गुण नियं. एवं तक. परी. इंगांनप बीकानेर ने अपने पत्रांक 13 दिनांक 4.1.2000 द्वारा अपने निष्कर्ष सहित मुख्य अभियन्ता, इंगांनप बीकानेर को जॉच के तथ्यों से सहमत होते हुए अपनी निम्न टिप्पणी प्रेषित की :-

(अ) गडरा रोड उपशाखा की बुर्जी 7.500 पर क्षतिग्रस्त हुई, जिसका कारण भारी वर्षा रही है।

(ब) उक्त नहर की बुर्जी 9.00 से 9.500 बांई तरफ 400' में 23 पैनल्स व बुर्जी 9.20 से 10.00 के मध्य 800' लम्बाई में दांई ओर 24 पैनल्स में नहर के समानान्तर क्रेक्स पाये गये है तथा बुर्जी 9.700 से 10.00 तक 300' लम्बाई में 37 पैनल्स क्षतिग्रस्त पाये गये है जो निम्न लिखित कारणों से सम्भव हैः-

(i) लाइनिंग के नीचे सब ग्रेड का पर्याप्त रूप से कम्पेक्शन नहीं किया जाना।

(ii) कंकरिट में ग्रिट का अनुपात बजरी की तुलना में कम पाया जाना।

(iii) लाइनिंग में कंकरीट का अल्टरनेट पैनल्स में नहीं डाला जाना।

अतिरिक्त मुख्य अभियन्ता सतर्कता गुण नियं.एवं तक.परी. इंगांनप बीकानेर ने क्षतिग्रस्त लाइनिंग के लिए ठेकेदार को दोषी मानते हुए उसी के खर्चे पर मरम्मत/पुनः निर्माण कार्य करवाये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया।

उपरोक्त सभी बिन्दुओं पर अधिशाषी अभियन्ता, इंगांनप वा.को. खण्ड-II जैसलमेर द्वारा विस्तृत टिप्पणी दी, जिस पर इस कार्यालय द्वारा भी सहमति व्यक्त की जा चुकी है, जो निम्नानुसार आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रस्तुत है :- (अ) जॉच प्रतिवेदन में बजरी एवं ग्रिट का अनुपात सही दर्शाया गया।

(ब) सब ग्रेड की जॉच के लिए कमेटी ने बुर्जी 9.500 के पास लाईनिंग के पैनल तोड़कर सब ग्रेड की डी.बी.डी. लेना सम्भव नहीं होने के कारण डॉवल के पास ही बैंक पर टी.बी.एल. से एक फीट से डेढ़ फीट नीचे डी.बी.डी. ली जो 1.86 ग्राम/घन से.मी. से 1.61 ग्राम/घन से.मी. पाई गई एवं इंगांनप में लाईनिंग के लिए सब ग्रेड की न्यूनतम डी.बी.डी. 1.60 ग्राम/घन से.मी. होनी चाहिए।

(स) दोषपूर्ण कार्य को ठेकेदार ने स्वयं के खर्चे पर रिपेयर कर दिया है तथा अन्तिम देयक का भुगतान भी कर दिया गया है।

(द) रामगढ़ एवं आस-पास के क्षेत्र में दिनांक 20.9.1998 एवं 21.9.98 को बहुत भारी बरसात हुई थी जिसकी वजह से बहुत नुकसान हुआ था। चूॅकि गडरा रोड उपशाखा की बुर्जी 9 से 10 सीमेंट कंक्रीट लाइनिंग कार्य रिकार्ड अनुसार भारी मूसलाधार वर्षा एवं बाढ़ से मात्र दो दिवस पूर्व ही पूर्ण होने एवं उक्त क्षेत्र बेण्टोनाईट क्षेत्र होने के कारण नहर का क्षतिग्रस्त होना स्वाभाविक होकर आपदा की श्रेणी का था।

उपरोक्त परिप्रेक्ष्य में अधिशाषी अभियन्ता, सतर्कता, गुण नियं. वं तक. परी.खण्ड चतुर्थ इंगांनप जैसलमेर द्वारा की गई जॉच, अधीक्षण अभियन्ता सतर्कता, गुण नियं. एवं तक. परी. फलोदी के पत्रांक तक/जॉच/883 दिनांक 28.10.99 एवं अतिरिक्त मुख्य अभियन्ता सतर्कता गुण नियं. एवं तक.परी. इंगांनप बीकानेर के पत्रांक 13 दिनांक 4.1.2000 के सन्दर्भ में प्रकरण का पुनः परीक्षण किया गया एवं प्रकरण को नस्तीबद्ध करने की अनुशंसा की जाती है। संलग्नः उपरोक्तानुसार

भवदीय,

सही/-

मुख्य अभियन्ता,

इन्दिरा गांधी नहर परियोजना,

जैसलमेर"

The recommendation was forwarded to the Joint Secretary for further proceedings, where on, the order (Annex.9) was issued by the Joint Secretary opining and dissenting with the opinion as under:-

"उपरोक्त विषयान्तर्गत लेख है कि सांखल खेडा परियोजना के बांध में रिसाव होने पर इसकी जांच हेतु गठित जांच कमेटी ने अपने निरीक्षण प्रतिवेदन में कार्य निर्धारित मापदण्ड एवं आईडी एण्ड आर द्वारा स्वीकृत ड्राइंग एवं डिजाईन के अनुसार नहीं किया जाना पाया गया। जिसके कारण बांध में रिसाव हुआ है। उक्त नहर की बुर्जी 9.00 से 9.500 बाई तरफ 400' में 23 पैनल्स व बुर्जी 9.20 से 10.00 के मध्य 800' लम्बाई में दांई ओर 24 पैनल्स में नहर के समानान्तर क्रेक्स पाये गये है तथा बुर्जी 9.700 से 10.00 तक 300' लम्बाई में 37 पैनल्स क्षतिग्रस्त पाये गये है जो निम्न लिखित कारणों से सम्भव हैः-

1- लाईनिंग के नीचे सब ग्रेड का पर्याप्त रूप से कम्पेक्शन नहीं किया जाना।

2- कंकरिट में ग्रिट का अनुपात बजरी की तुलना में कम पाया जाना।

3- लाइनिंग में कंकरीट का अल्टरनेट पैनल्स में नहीं डाला जाना।

चूंकि उक्त निर्माण कार्य निर्धारित मापदण्ड एवं आईडी एण्ड आर द्वारा स्वीकृत ड्राइंग एवं डिजाईन के अनुसार नहीं किया है जिसके लिए दोनों अपचारी अधिकारी उत्तरदायी है। अतः प्रशासनिक इनके लिखित अभिकथन से सहमत नहीं है। इस संबंध में प्रशासनिक विभाग के सक्षम स्तर से प्राप्त अनुमोदित नोटशीट की प्रति संलग्न कर प्रेषित है।"

In the annexed opinion, the substance indicated is as under:-

"मुख्य अभियन्ता की टिप्पणी से स्पष्ट है कि निर्माण कार्य निर्धारित मापदण्डों के अनुसार नहीं हुआ है। इसके लिये केवल संवेदक को दोषी मानते हुए उसके खर्च पर पुनः निर्माण करवाये जाने से इन अधिकारियों को निर्दोष नहीं माना जा सकता। श्री लक्ष्मणराम पंवार, सहायक अभियन्ता एवं श्री अनिल चन्द माथुर, कनिष्ठ अभियन्ता का उत्तरदायित्व था कि निर्माण के दौरान वे कार्य को चैक करते तथा कार्य मापदण्डों के अनुरूप करवाते जो नहीं करवाया गया। अतः इसके लिये ये दोनों अधिकारी उत्तरदायी है। इनके लिखित अभिकथन से प्रशासनिक विभाग की सहमति दिया जाना उपयुक्त नहीं है। अतः तदनुसार टिप्पणी कार्मिक विभाग को भिजवा दी जावें।"

Whereafter, the inquiry officer was appointed. The parameters for challenging and quashing the charge-sheet has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), wherein, after referring to the numerous judgments including those cited by counsel for the petitioner, it was summarized in para-13 as under:-

"13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."

(emphasis supplied)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court essentially laid down that generally a charge-sheet cannot be challenged unless it has been issued by an authority not competent, neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at the initial stage and that the same cannot be quashed on the ground that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee.

A perusal of the reply to the charge-sheet Annex.5 filed by the petitioner indicates that the same started with the grievance about non-availability of various documents despite application made by the petitioner, refers to the various deficiencies in dealing with the issues and the entire sequence of events, whereby, the recommendations were made for dropping the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner specifically emphasized the delay in taking cognizance of an unnamed complaint, issuance of show-cause notice after five years, ignoring the recommendations of the competent authorities, the allegations being imaginary and again reiterating that his application for supply of documents was pending, which have not been made available.

The response of the petitioner apparently indicated a handicap/prejudice in responding to the charge-sheet on account of the delay / non-availability of document apparently because of the passage of time.

Once the reply was filed by the petitioner on 30.7.2013, again it took over 1½ year for appointment of inquiry officer, who was appointed on 10.12.2014. Even after appointment of the inquiry officer on 10.12.2014, nothing proceeded before the inquiry officer for almost 1½ year, forcing the petitioner to approach this Court questioning the legality and validity of respondents proceedings with the inquiry proceedings, when a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 14.7.2016 stayed further proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner.

The entire sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore, clearly indicates that for an alleged delinquency during the period 1997-99, the charge-sheet was issued in the year 2011, after filing of the response by the petitioner, the inquiry officer was appointed in the year 2014 and for 1½ year, nothing proceeded in the matter and now in the meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from service on 13.8.2018.

The decision not to accept the recommendation of the chief engineer (Annex.8) by note sheet (Annex.9) both quoted hereinbefore, essentially alleges supervisory negligence against the petitioner and based on which, the categorical opinion of the chief engineer for closing the issue has not been accepted. The reasons indicated for continuing with the inquiry are quite cursory and does not address the issue as to whether the initiation / continuance of proceedings after delay of almost 20 years from the alleged period of delinquency was justified. Further, the charge of supervisory negligence cannot be said to be grave enough so as to ignore the delay.

Even in the reply to the writ petition, the response pertains to the principles of non-interference against the charge-sheet, which in the circumstances noted hereinbefore, as per the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) has caused huge prejudice to the petitioner.

In view of overall fact situation, wherein the delay caused in the circumstances, has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner and the misconduct alleged is apparently not grave and except for the Joint Secretary, all the other officers upto the level of Chief Engineer, have recommended closure of the matter, the initiation and continuance of proceedings against the petitioner does not appear to be justified.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.1), appointment of inquiry officer by order dated 10.12.2014 (Annex.11), are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

As the petitioner has retired in the meanwhile, his terminal benefits be released to him expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of this order.