Rajasthan High Court
Brijendra Singh vs Raj Civil Services Appel Andors on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7873/2007
Brijendra Singh, son of Shri Sualal, aged about 44 years,
resident of Unrenwalo Ki Bagichi, Subhash Chowk, Bayana,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Mini Secretariat,
Bani Park, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of
Ayurved, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Ayurved, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Health Group IV, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Additional Director (Technical) Govt. of Rajasthan,
Directorate of Ayurved, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
5. Ramesh Chandra Meena, Medical Officer, Mukam, Pamcha
Patil Ka Nangla, post Suroth, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
30/06/2022
1. By way of present petition, following prayers are made
out:-
"(I) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated
15.06.2007 (Annx-1) passed by the respondent No.
01 as well as the ordr dated 6.9.2006 (Annx-12),
order dated 5.11.2003 (Annx-7), order dated
(2 of 5) [CW-7873/2007]
4.9.2002 (Annx-4) & order dated 8.12.98 (Annx-6) be
set aside and:
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued
in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner was appointed on 27.11.1989, on the post of
Ayurved Compounder and was initially posted at Government
Ayurveda Dispensary, Int. Kheda, District Bharatpur. He was later
transferred to Nangla Teja, District Bharatpur on 03.10.1997. On
account of certain irregularities, qua his conduct towards his
colleagues, discipline and discharge of duties, adverse entries
were made in the petitioner's APAR's for the year 1995-96 and
1996-97.
3. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice
dated 28.03.1998 (Annexure-2), on the basis of which adverse
entries were made, was sent at the previous place of working i.e.
Int. Kheda, which is apparent from the perusal of Annexure-2. It
is submitted that the said notice was received by the petitioner
only on 25.07.1998 and after receipt of the letter, due
representation/defence (Annexure-3) was submitted, refuting the
charges levelled in its entirety. The said representation was duly
admitted, apparent from perusal of order dated 08.12.1998
(Annexure-6). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that Annexure-6 was again addressed at the erstwhile
office address and was not sent to the petitioner's residence. As a
result of which, the petitioner was never informed as to what
decision was taken upon the representation, till the fixation order
dated 04.09.2002 was passed, whereby the benefit of selection
(3 of 5) [CW-7873/2007]
scale was not granted to the petitioner on account of adverse
entries for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97.
4. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal which was
found non-maintainable both by the Tribunal and by the Appellate
Authority. It is in this back ground that the present writ petition is
filed, which was admitted in the year 2007.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the petitioner has filed representation in pursuance to the
Annexure-2 which implies that issuance of a charge-sheet was in
his knowledge. Secondly, he has submitted that defence of
communicating the letter at his residence was already taken up
and adjudicated upon in the appeal. Learned counsel has further
submitted that at this belated stage, writ petition cannot be
entertained on merits.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondents, scanned the record of the writ petition and
considered judgments cited at Bar.
7. On perusal of Annexure-2, it is more than clear that the
notice was sent at previous posting of the petitioner i.e. Int.
Kheda at Bharatpur and there is correction in date also. Later, the
letter was amended/corrected and was sent to Nangla Teja, vide
letter dated 25.07.1998. The petitioner immediately filed the
representation/defence, which is reflected in Annexure-3. The said
representation was considered and rejected by the respondents-
authority, vide letter dated 08.12.1998, (Annexure-6). However,
the letter dated 08.12.1998 was again communicated to the
previous office address and not at the current address or the
amended address. It was only after passing of fixation order dated
(4 of 5) [CW-7873/2007]
04.09.2002, the petitioner became aware of the fact that his
representation was rejected.
8. In the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, it was held that principles of
natural justice must be followed when making entries in
confidential reports of public servant, and the public servant must
be heard or be allowed to make representation. Non-
communication was held to be violative of Article 14.
9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that
rejection of representation was never communicated to the
petitioner. As a result of which, petitioner was not given
opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice were not
followed. Appellate Authority has not passed any order on merits
on account of maintainability or other issues.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court
deems it appropriate to set aside the order dated 08.12.1998,
marked as Annexure-6, and all consequential orders whereby
benefit of selection scales was not granted. At the same time, we
direct the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner marked as Annexure-3, provide him opportunity of
personal hearing so that he can explain his defence against the
entries.
11. It is expected from the respondent-authority to
conclude the adjudication process within a period of 60 days, after
granting the petitioner opportunity of hearing and effective
opportunity of defence.
12. Relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev
Dutt (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
(5 of 5) [CW-7873/2007]
writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications
are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
