Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19122/2018
Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 33 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o Gram Panchayat 9 Psda, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Gharsana,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SN Goswami
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
06/04/2021
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the
order dated 03.12.2018, whereby his contractual engagement as
Computer Operator (Man with Machine) has been brought to an
end.
2. The precise facts are that the petitioner was engaged by the
respondent on a contract basis on 11.01.2010.
3. During his engagement, an amount of Rs. 44,878/- got
deposited in his account on various dates (21.04.2015,
25.04.2016, 01.09.2016 & 08.12.2016).
(2 of 3) [CW-19122/2018]
4. Later, on complaint by concerned person, an inquiry report
dated 12.11.2018 came to be furnished by the competent
authority in this regard.
5. In pursuance of the enquiry report, a notice dated
27.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner, as to why his
engagement be not terminated alleging that he has committed
fraud and wrongfully credited the amount in his account.
6. In response to the notice aforesaid, petitioner submitted his
reply, inter alia, stating that he was not even aware of credit of
such amount in his account and upon realising that the amount
aforesaid has been credited in his account, he has returned the
amount to the concerned person namely, Narendra Kumar S/o
Sohal Lal.
7. Being dissatisifed with the reply filed by the petitioner, the
competent authority dispensed with petitioner's engagement, inter
alia, observing that the petitioner has carried out cutting and
manipulation in the muster roll and has illegally devoured a sum
of Rs. 44,878/-.
8. Learned counsel at the outset argued that the impugned
order dated 03.12.2018 has been passed without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However upon Court's
confrontation, it was submitted that though a notice dated
27.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner but the time allowed was
only three days and thus, the order impugned suffers from
violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order
aforesaid argued that the amount has been credited in petitioner's
account, without petitioner's knowledge. He submitted that such
error has happened because of the fact that the concerned person
(3 of 3) [CW-19122/2018]
namely, Narendra Kumar S/o Sohal Lal entitled to such amount,
incidentally share the same name as that of the petitioner.
10. It was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as
the petitioner had paid the amount aforesaid to concerned
Narendra Kumar on 15.12.2016, no action, much less the action of
dispensing with the petitioner's engagement should have been
taken by the respondents.
11. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, who was
working as a Computer Operator (Man with Machine), having
committed cheating & forgery; a case being pending against him,
cannot claim any right to continue. This Court is not inclined to
exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner, more
particularly because petitioner's engagement was of contractual
nature.
12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
13. Petitioner will be free to avail appropriate remedies available
to him under law.
14. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
10-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
