State of Rajasthan and Others vs Dhapu Bai

The appeal is barred by limitation from 52 days. Two other defects have also been pointed out by the Registry and those too have not been removed by the appellant State of Rajasthan. Ignoring the defects pointed out by the Registry, we have examined merits of the appeal.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that husband of respondent-petitioner Smt. Dhapu Bai was in employment of the State of Rajasthan as Patwari. He was subjected to disciplinary action and was removed from service under an order dated 01.5.1985. The appeal preferred by him as per provisions of Section 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1958'') also came to be rejected under an order dated 29.11.1985. To question correctness of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, husband of the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ, being SBCWP No. 431/1986 (Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which came to be accepted by learned Single Bench of this Court on 18.11.1996. The learned Single Bench accepted the writ petition by relying upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 : (1993) 6 JT 1 : (1994) 1 LLJ 162 : (1993) 3 SCALE 952 : (1993) 4 SCC 727 : (1993) 2 SCR 576 Supp : (1993) 3 SLJ 193 by accepting the fact that before imposing penalty of dismissal from service, a report of enquiry was not supplied to him. The learned Single Bench set aside the order dated 29.11.1985 passed by the appellate authority and left it open for the disciplinary authority to supply a copy of enquiry report to the delinquent government servant, the government servant was at liberty to furnish his explanation and to file fresh appeal before the appellate authority.

The present appellant by way of filing an appeal questioned correctness of the judgment passed by learned Single Bench dated 18.11.1996, however, the appeal aforesaid came to be dismissed as withdrawn under the order dated 6.2.2008. The appeal was withdrawn as during pendency of that, the delinquent government servant died. After death of the government servant, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer under a letter dated 31.3.2009 while forwarding a representation submitted by the present respondent-petitioner to have post-retiral benefits observed that after death of delinquent government servant, the entire disciplinary action initiated against him stands automatically closed. The Collector (Land Records), Chittorgarh after considering the representation submitted by the respondent-petitioner by order dated 10.6.2009 held that in view of order dated 1.5.1985 the delinquent government servant was not in service, therefore, no post-retiral benefits can be extended to his wife and his other legal heirs. To question correctness of the order dated 10.6.2009 and its consequential order dated 18.10.2009, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this Court, that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned dated 06.2.2014. The learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition held that in view of order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, no disciplinary action against husband of the respondent-petitioner remained in existence, therefore, no justifiable reason was there to deny post-retiral benefits.

Before us while pressing this appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-respondent that the learned Single Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 431/1986 set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, therefore, the order of disciplinary authority was very much in existence, hence, husband of the respondent-petitioner is required to be treated as an employee dismissed from service and not as an existing government servant. It is asserted that being not an existing government servant on the date of death, no post-death cum retiral benefits could have been granted to the respondent-petitioner being wife of government servant, who suffered dismissal under the order dated 01.5.1989.

We do not find any merit with the argument advanced.

From perusal of the judgment dated 18.11.1996, it is apparent that before imposing penalty of dismissal, the disciplinary authority did not supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee, husband of the respondent-petitioner. The non-supply of the report of Enquiry Officer makes the order imposing penalty bad in view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 : (1991) 61 FLR 736 : (1990) 4 JT 456 : (1991) 1 LLJ 29 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1094 : (1991) 1 SCC 588 : (1990) 3 SCR 248 Supp : (1991) 1 SLJ 196 : (1991) 1 UJ 163 and its further extension of the law laid down in the case referred above in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (supra). The learned Single Bench while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority left it open for the employer to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee and then to decide the matter afresh. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Bench indicates that the penalty imposed too was set aside. Besides the above, it is pertinent to notice that the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer too under a letter dated 31.3.2009 in quite unambiguous terms stated that after death of an employee no departmental enquiry remains in currency and the same stands closed automatically. In view of this view of the Board of Revenue, we do not find any wrong with the directions given by the learned Single Bench. Suffice to mention that the husband of the respondent petitioner was working as Patwari and the controlling authority of his services was the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer only.

For the reasons whatever stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.