Sohan Lal Bhati vs State of Rajasthan

Sangeet Lodha, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dt. 20.10.09 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner who was employed as Beldar with the respondent, has been removed from service on account of fraud committed by him in procuring the employment. Initially, the petitioner was employed vide order dt. 8.11.85 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Division Deedwana on muster roll for wages Rs. 11 per day. Later, vide order dt. 4.5.92, he was accorded semi permanent status as Helper under the provision of Rajasthan P.W.D. B & R including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work Charge Employees Service, Rules, 1964.

While continuing in service as aforesaid, vide order dt. 28.9.95, the penalty of withholding two grade increments was imposed inter alia upon the petitioner for producing forged certificate regarding the academic qualification i.e. Class VIII. That apart, the petitioner and his likes were treated to be employed as Beldar instead of Helper. Thereafter, on completion of ten years of service, the petitioner was accorded permanent status vide order dt. 12.8.98 Issued by the Superintending Engineer, Circle Nagaur.

The petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide memorandum dt. 3.9. (Sic Year) under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "CCA Rules") accompanied by the statement of allegations. The allegations against the petitioner was that by producing forged transfer certificate, he disclosed his date of birth to be 21.7.66 whereas, his actual date of birth is 13.5.68. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet denying the allegation. That apart, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that considering the document produced by him to be forged, be having been already punished by way of order dt. 28.9.95 with the penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect, no fresh proceedings under Rule 16 of CCA Rules could be initiated against him.

The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that vide order impugned dt. 30.10.09 without holding any further enquiry into the charges leveled, he has been removed from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having denied the charges, the respondents were under an obligation to hold the regular enquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against him in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. It is submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case and defend the allegations levelled. Learned counsel submitted that no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce any evidence in his defence. Learned counsel submitted that the unilateral decision of the Disciplinary Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges levelled against him, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that apparently, the school transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner disclosing his date of birth to be 21.7.66 was forged inasmuch as, as per the scholar register maintained by the school where the petitioner was studying, his date of birth is 31.5.68. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has procured the appointment by producing forged document, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from service cannot be faulted with. However, learned counsel fairly conceded that before passing the impugned order, no fair opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioner to defend the charges levelled against him.

Indisputably, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16-of CCA Rules, which prescribes a detailed procedure to be followed by the Inquiring Authority. Where the delinquent employee pleads not guilty to the charges, the Presenting Officer is required to submit the list of witnesses and documents and a copy thereof is required to be sent to the Government servant concerned, who in his turn is entitled to submit the list of documents required by him for his defence. The parties are entitled to lead their evidence. The delinquent employee is entitled to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority is under an obligation to prepare a report of inquiry recording its finding on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor. The Disciplinary Authority is required to forward a copy of the report of the inquiry held by him or where the Disciplinary Authority is not Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority, to the delinquent employee who has a right to submit his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority, if he so desires. The appropriate order if the delinquent employee is found guilty is required to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the representation to be made by the delinquent employee. In this view of the matter, the order impugned which has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges levelled against him, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly , the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed. The respondents\\shall be at liberty to proceed with the inquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges levelled against him in conformity with the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and the principles of natural justice. No order as to costs.