AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the charge-sheet dated 26.07.2017 (Annex.-5).
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, has retired from service on 31.07.2017.
During his tenure of service from 20.11.1984 when he was appointed as Jr. Engineer, he was never communicated any adverse remarks. The charge-sheet dated 26.07.2017 was served upon the petitioner on 27.07.2017, wherein allegations were made that when the petitioner was working as Jr. Engineer in the UIT, Jodhpur in the year 1997, he was directed to submit site report, wherein the petitioner had stated that possession of one Ramlal s/o Mangilal was on the part of the road, which was removed. It was alleged that the petitioner did not specify as to who removed the possession and as to whether the possession was of the UIT or the Municipality and did not specify the date of death of father of Ramlal and other relevant dates, which was required of him, resulting in allotment of land and loss to the Trust.
The petitioner on receiving of the charge-sheet, filed an application dated 08.08.2017 for grant of original file pertaining to delinquency alleged and also prayed for personal hearing. A reminder was also sent. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner under RTI, some record was made available to the petitioner, wherein the order-sheet pertaining to the land in question was provided indicating that the petitioner had visited site and gave report that possession of Ramlal was not there and during investigation with the neighbours, it was found that during shifting, the land of Ramlal was found within limit of the right to way and, therefore, the same was removed. It is claimed that the petitioner had not made any averment with regard to allotment of alternative land or any like nature, the report was countersigned by Secretary and it was the Executive Engineer, who proposed allotment of alternative land to Ramlal and the petitioner did not indicate anything in this regard.
Based on the above averments, it is claimed that the issuance of charge-sheet is arbitrary and the same has been issued in a cursory manner without application of mind and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Further submissions have been made that the charges are vague and that the allegations have been made after 20 years of the alleged delinquency i.e. the issue pertains to the year 1997 and the charge-sheet has been issued in the year 2017 and despite repeated requests as the documents are not being made available, the petitioner for lapse of time, would not be able to defend himself.
Submissions have also been made that FR has already been given by the Police and the Competent Court has also accepted the same and, therefore, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On notices being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, raising preliminary objections that the charge-sheet cannot be quashed for the reasons indicated in the writ petition. It is claimed that the charge-sheet issued is in accordance with law.
Further submissions have been made that in case, the petitioner has not indulged in any wrong doing, he would not be exonerated in the inquiry and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the charge-sheet has been issued after 20 years of the alleged delinquency, the final report given by the Anti Corruption Bureau, has already been accepted by the Competent Court.
Further submissions have been made that apparently the action was initiated after 10 years of acceptance of FR on account of certain communications written by the Dy. Superintendent of Police regarding the action taken and based on which apparently as an eye-wash the present charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner, which deserves to be quashed and set aside on account of delay and the fact that no case worth the name is made out against the petitioner.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in State of Raj. v. Rajendra Gupta : 2016(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 499 and Satya Prakash Gautam v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 16319/2017, decided on 22.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the charge-sheet does not call for any interference, inasmuch as, merely because FR has been given by the Police, the same by itself cannot be a reason for quashing of the charge-sheet as the departmental proceedings are independent of the criminal proceedings and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The relevant portions of the charge-sheet and the note-sheet, which is subject of the charge, reads as under:-
Charge-sheet:
यह है कि आप श्री रेशमाराम हुड्डा, तत्कालीन कनिष्ठ अभियन्ता, ने नगर विकास न्यास, जोधपुर (अब जोधपुर विकास प्राधिकरण) में वर्ष 1997 में पदस्थापित रहते हुये श्री रामलाल पुत्र श्री मांगीलाल को पत्रावली जिसमें रामलाल ने प्रार्थना पत्र में उसके पिता मांगीलाल पुत्र गोपालराम को प्लाट संख्या-7 भगत की कोठी, जोधपुर को पूर्व में आंवटन होना बताया एवं प्लाट सड़क सीमा में आने के कारण उसके बदले अन्य रिक्त भूखण्ड आंवटन बाबत् निवेदन किया था। सेक्रेटरी सोहनलाल माहेष्वरी से मौका रिपोर्ट बाबत प्राप्त होने पर आपने पत्रावली में मौका देखना व प्रार्थी का कब्जा सड़क सीमा में आने से हटाना बताकर अपनी टिप्पणी अंकित की। आपने अपनी टिप्पणी में इस प्लाट का कब्जा यूआईटी या नगर निगम, किसने हटाया, कब्जा कब हटाया, रामलाल के पिता का देहान्त कब हुआ, अब कहां रहते है के बाबत् कोई टिप्पणी अंकित नहीं की, जो आपको करनी चाहिए थी। आपके उक्त टिप्पणी नहीं करने के कारण रामलाल को भूखण्ड संख्या-7 भगत की कोठी की एवज में भूखण्ड संख्या सी-184 एवं डी-435 सरस्वती नगर जोधपुर के बेषकीमती भूखण्डों का लाईसेन्स नगर सुधार न्यास, द्वारा जारी कर दिया गया जिसके कारण न्यास को आर्थिक हानि पहुँची। रामलाल को भूखण्ड संख्या सी-184 एवं डी-435 सरस्वती नगर, नियम विरूद्ध आवंटन होने के कारण इन दोनों ही भूखण्डों का आवंटन बाद में नगर सुधार न्यास, जोधपुर द्वारा निरस्त किया गया
Note-sheet:
"3. आदेशानुसार मौका देखा गया, मौके पर P.N. 7 पुरानी भगत की कोठी में वर्तमान में प्रार्थी का कब्जा नहीं होना पाया गया। मौके पर पूछताछ के दौरान बताया गया कि उक्त भूखण्ड Shifting के दौरान प्रार्थी का कब्जा सड़क सीमा में आने के कारण हटाया गया था। मौका रिपोर्ट अवलोकनार्थ प्रस्तुत है।
From the perusal of the documents, it appears that an FIR was lodged against several officers in the year 2001; on 02.03.2007, the Anti Corruption Bureau filed final report on coming to the conclusion that misuse of position was not established and, there was violation of departmental rules, regarding which departmental proceedings have been initiated. The FR was accepted by the Competent Court on 31.07.2007. Thereafter, for apparently 7 years, nothing proceeded, whereafter the Dy. Superintendent of Police wrote two communications to the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust regarding the outcome of the action taken against the petitioner. Based on which, apparently just 3 days' before the petitioner's retirement i.e. on 26.07.2017, the charge-sheet was issued; allegations in the charge-sheet pertain to the fact that the report submitted by the petitioner in the year 1997 was incomplete/laconic, based on which allotments were made, resulting in financial loss to the Urban Improvement Trust.
A perusal of the report (Annex.-9) made by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 indicates that he simply indicated that possession of one Ramlal was removed as the same was coming in the right of way. Immediately thereafter, in the next note-sheet without any further consideration, allotment has been proposed and made by the higher authorities.
As to the charge-sheet, which has been issued to the petitioner, the entire burden of allotment and consequential loss on the alleged account of laconic report has been placed on the petitioner, whereas the petitioner apparently nowhere was involved in the allotment as such and in case the report as submitted was laconic in any manner, it was for the allotment authority to seek further report and/or order inquiry and there was no compulsion to make the allotment.
Looking to the nature of report, filed as Annex.-9 and the allotment, which has been proposed and made immediately thereafter, it cannot be said that insofar as the loss, which is alleged to have occurred to the UIT, the petitioner had any role to play, who is simply being made a scapegoat. The delinquency apparently, if any, was that of the allotting authority in not seeking a further report/ordering a detailed inquiry into the matter and, therefore, the action of the respondents in singling out the petitioner for issuance of charge-sheet after 20 years with the allegations of making a cursory report appears to be only an attempt as an eye-wash as a Dy. S.P. of the Anti Corruption Bureau after submission of final report, which was accepted by the Competent Court, for the reasons best known to him had called upon the Secretary, UIT to show the progress against the two named officers though as noticed the said Bureau itself gave a final report not finding any criminality in the action of the petitioner.
So far as the objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, looking to the nature, delay and frivolity of charges as noticed hereinbefore, it cannot be said that this Court is denuded of power to quash a charge-sheet, once the Court comes to the conclusion regarding futility of the proceeding against a retired employee.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 26.07.2017 (Annex.-5) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law alongwith interest in terms of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 on the amount found due as retiral benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner be paid his retiral benefits with interest in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.