State of Rajasthan and Others vs Mangi Lal

V.K. Mathur, J.—The appellants- State of Rajasthan & others have filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dt. 05.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5838/1993, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Mangi Lal, by quashing the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority (Annx. 33 to the writ petition) dt. 11.03.1977 and the order of the Appellate Authority dt. 21.12.1982 (Annx. 41 to the writ petition). Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent Mangi Lal was a Class-IV employee in Excise Department, working as Class-IV Guard at Bilara at the relevant time. In contemplation of inquiry, he was placed under suspension by the order dt. 02.09.1974. On 14.12.1974, the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur issued a charge-sheet (Annx. 1) to the respondent, containing two charges. Charge No. 1 was about consuming alcohol and using unparliamentary language at the liquor shops of Ram Chandra at Bilara and Madan Lal at Malkoshni. In Charge No. 2, it was alleged that on 30.08.1974, the respondent demanded 25 paise per litre or Rs. 1200/- per month for the then Circle Inspector of Bilara region.

During continuation of the aforesaid inquiry, the concerned Circle Inspector Shri Roop Chand Shah was also charge sheeted on 11.07.1975 in respect of aforesaid charge No. 2 with other charges. The enquiry was ordered to be conducted jointly against the said Circle Inspector Roop Chand Shah as also the respondent Mangi Lal. However, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the District Excise Officer, who was not the Disciplinary Authority for the said Shri Roop Chand Shah. On 10.10.1975, joint enquiry report was submitted to the Excise Commissioner, who was the Disciplinary Authority for Roop Chand Shah. Shri Shah raised objection about validity of joint enquiry by the Enquiry Officer appointed in the case of Mangi Lal. On 21.11.1975, the Excise Commissioner accepted his objection and ordered re-investigation by holding a joint enquiry. However, the Excise Commissioner did not notice the fact that Roop Chand Shah had already been dismissed from service by an order dt. 11.11.1975, passed in another inquiry and hence, as on 21.11.1975, he was not in the employment of Excise Department.

Nonetheless, in pursuance of the order dt. 21.11.1975, the Enquiry Officer-submitted his enquiry report on 24.07.1976 and on that basis, a show cause notice dt. 02.08.1976, proposing penalty of dismissal was issued to respondent Mangi Lal. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondent Mangi Lal raised several objections. Thereafter, by order dt. 11.03.1977 (Annx. 33), the respondent was dismissed from the service.

The respondent Mangi Lal preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dt. 11.03.1977 before the State Government. However, he filed the writ petition in this Court on 20.11.1993 stating, inter alia, that he had received a letter dt. 15.06.1993 informing about disposal of his appeal on 21.12.1982 but the copy of the order passed in appeal had not been served on him. During the pendency of the writ petition, copy of the order dt. 21.12.1982 (Annex. 41) was served on the respondent Mangi Lal; and he was allowed to amend the writ petition questioning the said order too. The writ petition filed by the respondent Mangi Lal was finally allowed by the learned Single fudge of this Court by the impugned order dt. 05.10.2004. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal against the order dt. 05.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge.

We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also perused the record.

It is noticed that in the order dt. 11.03.1977 (Annx. 33), the Disciplinary Authority only stated its agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding the charges against the respondent Mangi Lal but failed to take into consideration his objections and contentions that he was not given an opportunity of hearing and cross-examining the witnesses. The order of the Appellate Authority dt. 21.12.1982 (Annx. 41) also did not deal with the objections and contentions of the respondent Mangi Lal and the appeal was dismissed by a non-speaking order.

It is further noticed that the said Shri Roop Chand Shah, who was subjected to a joint enquiry alongwith the present respondent Mangi Lal, filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1599/1980 against his dismissal order. This writ petition was allowed vide order dt. 21.11.1990, inter alia, holding that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did not deal with the petitioner''s submissions and contentions and there was no application of mind by the concerned authorities.

It is, thus, evident that the Departmental Authorities have held the proceedings against the respondent Mangi Lal in a manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and have disabled themselves from reaching to a fair decision. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that while deciding the writ petition of Roop Chand Shah, the Court came to the conclusion that enquiry was conducted without giving reasonable opportunity of defence; and the objection raised against the conduct of enquiry before the Disciplinary Authority was not dealt with. The learned Single Judge has observed, and in our opinion rightly so, that by the parity of reasoning, the orders passed in the present case, cannot be sustained.

The learned Single Judge has also referred to the fact that there was no cogent direct evidence against the respondent Mangi Lal on the allegation that he was collecting money on behalf of Roop Chand Shah and has also referred to the finding of the Enquiry Officer qua the respondent Mangi Lal that he might have demanded money to pay his superiors''. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the said Shri Roop Chand Shah has since retired by taking all benefits of service. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the charge against the respondent Mangi Lal was integrally connected with the charge against Shri Roop Chand Shah, who was rather the principal delinquent. The said incumbent having been exonerated and disciplinary proceedings against him having since been quashed and set aside, the orders dt. 11.03.1977 (Annx. 33) and 21.12.1982 (Annx. 41) against the respondent cannot be sustained.

In this view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition are absolutely just and legal and no interference is warranted. In view of the above, the instant appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.