Deepak Kumar Singhal S/O Shri Amar ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7689 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4846/2019

Deepak Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Amar Chand Singhal, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o S-81, 4-S, Scheme, New Loha Mandi, Near
Dhaka Farm House, Machera, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
        Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Secretariat,
        Jaipur.
2.      The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC with
                                     Mr. Mohd. Ammar Zaidi


         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                       Order
16/12/2021

The present petition has been filed with a prayer for

quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 08.07.2014 and

relief for grant of benefit of confirmation of services and other

consequential benefits thereof.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

One FIR was registered against the petitioner on 27.06.2010

in which after investigation, a final report (FR) was filed on

11.09.2010. Meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as School

Lecturer (Political Science) vide appointment order dated

14.12.2010. On 11.01.2011 cognizance on the protest petition

filed in the criminal matter was taken by the Court and later on

the petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2012. He remained behind

the bars from the period of 13.03.2012 to 22.03.2012.

(2 of 5) [CW-4846/2019]

Because the petitioner had been arrested and remained

behind the bars, charge-sheet dated 08.07.2014 was served on

him by Department with the following charge:-

"vkjksi la0 1 ;g gS fd vki Jh nhid fla?ky] O;k[;krk ¼jktuhfr foKku½ jkmekfo dksyfl;k] >qa>uwa ds fo:) xzke cckbZ esa vkilh fookn ds dkj.k iqfyl Fkkuk [ksrM+h esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj la[;k [email protected] fnukad 27&6&10 nk;j gqbZA iqfyl }kjk vkidks fnukad 13&03&12 dks fgjklr esa fy;k x;kA vki fnukad 22-03-12 rd U;kf;d fgjklr esa jgsA vkids mDr --R; ls foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA vr% vkidks jktLFkku vkpj.k fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 3 o 4 dk mYya?ku djus ds vkjksi ls vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA vkjksi dk foLr`r fooj.k layXu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr gSA""

Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings were finalised and vide

order dated 19.07.2018, the petitioner was acquitted by the Trial

Court.

The petitioner therefore prayed for confirmation, pay

fixation, seniority and promotional benefits but the same were

declined to him on the basis of the Departmental enquiry against

him which had been initiated in pursuance to charge sheet dated

08.07.2014.

Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been

preferred with a prayer to quash the charge sheet and for grant of

other benefits. It is relevant to take note of the fact that after the

notices having been issued by this Court in the present petition,

for the first time, the Enquiry Officer had been appointed by the

Department on 15.07.2019 for initiation of the Departmental

enquiry proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that charge sheet

dated 08.07.2014 being wholly illegal and in contravention to the

law be quashed. The Counsel has argued that,

(3 of 5) [CW-4846/2019]

Firstly, he was not a Government servant at the time of

commission of the alleged offence and therefore, Rule 3 and 4 of

Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1971 would not apply

under which the charge sheet in question has been served on him.

Secondly, charge sheet had been issued on the basis of fact that

he had been arrested in pursuance of criminal proceedings.

Ultimately when he had been acquitted and the acquittal was an

honourable acquittal, the charge-sheet remains of no relevance.

Thirdly, in view of the acquittal by the Competent Court any

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the same charge

would be unjust and the same cannot be permitted to be

continued by the Department.

The counsel further argued that the arrest of a person

cannot be a misconduct so far as his service conditions are

concerned and even in terms of Rule 3 and 4, the same cannot be

attributable to the petitioner. The same was an action of the police

and any action of the police cannot be said to be an act of the

employee which would fall in terms of Rule 3 and 4 of Rules of

1971.

Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1971 reads as under:

General-(1) Every Government servant shall at all times-

(i) maintain absolute integrity; and

(ii) maintain devotion to duty and dignity of office. 2 (I) Every Government Servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority;

(ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible.

(4 of 5) [CW-4846/2019]

Explanation- Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be constituted as empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities. 3A. Violation of the rules: Any Government servant who commits violation of these rules shall be liable for disciplinary action.

      4.     Improper       and      unbecoming      conduct-Any
      Government servant who-

(I) is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude whether in the course of the discharge of his duties or not;

(ii) behaves in public in a disorderly manner unbecoming of his position as a Government servant; or

(iii) is proved to have sent an anonymous or Pseudonymous petition to any person in authority;

(iv) leads an immoral life;

[(v) disobeys lawful order or instructions of superior officer or defies the superior officer;] [(vi) without sufficient and reasonable cause, neglects or refuses to maintain his/her spouse, parent, minor or disabled child who is unable to maintain himself/ herself or, does not look after any of them in a responsible manner;]or [(vii) willfully tempers with the meter or any other equipment or the power/water line with a view to causing financial loss to any of the Departments/Companies providing public utilities like power and water;- shall be liable to disciplinary action.]

In support of his submissions, Counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2019

(2) WLC 399 decided on 07.03.2019.

Per contra, Counsel for the respondent has argued that the

confirmation of service of the petitioner and all the consequential

benefits have not been granted to him only because of the

pendency of the departmental enquiry against him. Therefore, the

Department may be granted three months time to complete the

proceedings so that further action in the matter may be taken up.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

A bare perusal of charge sheet dated 08.07.2014 shows that

the charge as framed is only pertaining to the arrest of the

(5 of 5) [CW-4846/2019]

petitioner. After the honourable acquittal of the petitioner in the

criminal proceedings for the offences qua which he was arrested,

it cannot be said that any valid charge survives which has to be

enquired into by the Department.

Moresoever Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 speaks of any action

or inaction on part of the Government servant and Rule 4 speaks

of a conviction of Government servant. Both of the two conditions

would not be applicable on the petitioner as firstly; on the date of

the alleged offence, he was not a Government servant and

secondly; he has not been convicted for any offence which would

amount to moral turpitude. Therefore, it can safely be concluded

that case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of Rule

3 and 4 of the Rules of 1971 under which the charge sheet has

been issued to him.

In view of the above observations, the charge sheet dated

08.07.2014 issued by the Department deserves to be quashed and

is quashed. In consequence thereof, the respondents are directed

to grant the benefit of confirmation to the petitioner from the date

other candidates appointed along with him were confirmed. Other

consequential benefits such as pay fixation, seniority, promotion

etc would also be granted to the petitioner by the Department as

permissible in terms of law.

The respondent-Department is directed to pass appropriate

orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

(REKHA BORANA),J

ashu /104

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)