AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner preferred this writ petition by making
following prayers:-
"(a) the impugned orders Annex.5 dated 23.01.2002, Annex.8 dated 1-4-2003 and Annex.10 dated 17-1-2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authoriyt, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively, may kindly be quashed set aside, as if the same were never passed.
(b) The petitioner may kindly be exonerated from the charge by quashing the charge sheet dated 18- 30200 (Annex.1)
The facts noticed by this Court in the petition are that
the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer and was
posted in PWD Sub-Division II, Pali from 07.09.1994 to
15.07.1995. A charge sheet under Rule 17 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals)
Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as ''the Rules of 1958'')
was served upon the petitioner on 18.03.2000.
The allegation in the charge sheet was that because of
the inaction and non-appearance of the petitioner in one
case i.e. Case No.66/92 before the Labour Court, Jodhpur,
was decided ex-parte against the Department vide order
dated 11.12.1995 and in favour of the workman Dhala
Ram thus causing a loss of Rs.16,060/- to the State
Government.
The petitioner filed a detailed reply stating therein
that before he joined at the place of his posting on
08.09.1994, the case had already come up on the following
dates i.e. 07.09.1992, 09.11.1992, 11.02.1993,
05.05.1993, 23.06.1993, 01.12.1993, 20.01.1994,
27.01.994, 23.03.1994, 25.05.1994 and on 24.08.1994.
The petitioner categorically took stand that the case
was going on in the Labour Court, Jodhpur for last two
years without any contest. Even the appointment of the
Govt. Counsel to represent the case was also not initiated.
The learned Labour Court, Jodhpur had noted on
24.08.1992 that it shall be the last opportunity upon the
respondent to file a reply.
The petitioner further averred that at the time of
handing over the charge to him, the then incumbent of the
post Shri S.S. Mathur did not leave any note regarding
position of the important points/works including the Court
case as required in Para 10.7 of the PWD Manual, under
Chapter X and the petitioner was completely in dark about
the position of the case. The petitioner through out his
tenure did not receive any information whatsoever from the
Court or the staff or the Department regarding the ongoing
case and, therefore, the petitioner neither had knowledge
to defend the case, nor he made any efforts to contest the
case. It is also averred by the petitioner that after the
charge was handed over again to Shri S.S.Mathur, the case
was listed for hearing on 24.08.1995, 16.11.1995 and
11.12.1995. He neither got the Government Counsel
appointed nor made any other efforts to stay the
proceedings. The petitioner''s stand was consistent in all
these replies filed by him.
The respondents, however, found the petitioner guilty
of the charges and imposed the penalty of withholding one
annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide
order dated 23.01.2002.
The petitioner preferred the appeal in which order was
passed on 01.04.2003 so as to maintain the original order
dated 23.01.2002. Both the orders were again maintained
in review order passed on 17.01.2005. The petitioner
preferred this writ petition against these orders.
The respondent filed a reply to the writ petition and
stated that it was the duty of the petitioner to look after
the cases pending in the Court and hence he had committed
lapse in performing said duty, therefore, the punishment
was rightly imposed upon the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent also argued that the
impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority,
Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority are perfectly
legal and valid orders passed after proper appreciation of
the facts and circumstances of the case and the same do
not call for any interference by this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the both the
parties and have perused the record available.
Having considered the arguments advanced by the
counsel for the the parties this Court is of the opinion that
on the face of it, the responsibility of contesting the case
was deviated at the time of initiation of the case itself. This
fact is not disputed by the respondent that prior to the
petitioner, taking the charge of the office concerned, the
matter was already listed about ten times and also it is not
disputed that the matter was listed after the petitioner
demitted the said office at least three times. The
respondents have not punished the officer responsible for
not contesting the case before the Labour Court, Jodhpur as
on about ten occasions prior to the petitioner assuming
charge and about on three occasions after the petitioner
demitting the said office. The consistent stand of the
petitioner has been that he was never informed in writing
or oral or through any official document during his tenure
regarding status of the case by the officer incharge to
contest the case in question.
In normal course this Court would not like to
interfere in any orders passed by the authority under Rule
17 of the Rules of 1958 but in this case, on the face of it,
the petitioner admittedly is not responsible for all the
crucial dates of the case. The case in Labour Court,
Jodhpur was continued since last about ten dates before
the petitioner took charge and for three dates after the
holding of charge by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner
alone cannot be held responsible for negligence. The
petitioner was never communicated about the details of the
pending case, therefore, he was not having any kind of
information or intimation so as to attend such case.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
allowed and the orders dated 23.01.2002 (Annex.5),
01.04.2003 (Annex.8) and 17.01.2005 (Annex.10) are
quashed and set aside.