Champa Nath vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17921 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16306/2021

Champa Nath S/o Shri Dhanna Nath, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Hariyamali, Police Station Bagdinagar, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Managing Director (Bank), Jodhpur Central Co-

Operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. The Executive Officer, The Jodhpur Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary.

For Respondent(s)         :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

29/11/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on

20.11.2021 aggrieved against the order dated 31.01.2002,

whereby the petitioner was removed from service.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that by order dated

31.01.2002, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the

ground of charge-sheet issued to him for defalcation of a sum of

Rs.6,10,320/-. Subsequent thereto, in the criminal trial, the

petitioner was convicted on 30.09.2010 (Annex.1), however, on an

appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate court on 29.08.2018

(Annex.3) has acquitted the petitioner and therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.

(2 of 3) [CW-16306/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

once the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case

pertaining to defalcation, he is entitled for reinstatement and

consequential benefits.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and have perused the material available on

record.

A bare look at Annexure-2 dated 31.01.2002, reveals that

the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet in the year 1995 wherein

the disciplinary authority, by the said order, came to the

conclusion that as the petitioner did not produce any material in

support of his case and did not give any satisfactory response, in

exercise of the power under Rule 17(1)(c) of the Rules of 1969 as

amended in the year 1991, the petitioner was removed from

service.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the validity of the

order dated 31.01.2002 at any point of time till filing of the

present writ petition. The petitioner was thereafter convicted by

the criminal court on 20.09.2010 (Annex.1) and that judgment

has been reversed by the appellate court on 29.08.2018

(Annex.3).

Passing of the judgment dated 29.08.2018 acquitting the

petitioner by the appellate court, cannot have any implication on

the order dated 31.01.2002 (Annex.2) passed by the respondents,

inasmuch as, the said order was not passed as a consequence of

petitioner's conviction by the trial court. It could have been

different, in case the services of the petitioner were put to an end

after 2010 on account of his conviction and that conviction had

been overturned subsequently, which is not the case. The

(3 of 3) [CW-16306/2021]

petitioner did not question the order dated 31.01.2002 (Annex.2)

at the relevant time, the said order has become final and

questioning its validity after a passage of about 20 years cannot

be countenanced only on account of order passed by the appellate

court acquitting the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is

made out in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

70-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)