Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Man Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6780/2022
Man Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, aged about 60 Years, Resident
of Village Roda, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Home, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. Superintendent of Police, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dev Krishan Gaur.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
13/05/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on
26.04.2022 aggrieved against the order dated 23.08.2007
(Annex.7) passed by the respondent No.4, whereby while
imposing punishment pursuant to the departmental enquiry
initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958'),
while imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment
with cumulative effect, for the period of suspension except for
subsistence allowance, the rest of the salary and allowances have
been forfeited. It has further been directed that the petitioner
(2 of 4) [CW-6780/2022]
would be entitled to notional increment and selection grades and
the arrear shall not be paid in cash.
The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 29.07.1994
under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, however, by order dated
08.11.1994, on receipt of the enquiry report indicating that as the
petitioner was in judicial custody and effective enquiry cannot be
held, the Disciplinary Authority dropped the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner and directed that the same
shall be initiated after the petitioner is released from jail. The
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life
vide judgment dated 15.05.1997. The disciplinary proceedings
were re-initiated against the petitioner and again enquiry report
dated 30.12.1999 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Where
after, after issuing notice to the petitioner penalty of dismissal
from the service dated 15.02.2000 was imposed and an appeal
against the said order was dismissed on 10.05.2000.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being
SBCWP No.2669/2002, which came to be decided on 05.09.2006,
whereby the order of penalty dated 15.02.2000 and the appellate
order dated 13.11.2020 were set aside. The respondents were left
free to hold enquiry pursuant to charge sheet dated 29.07.1994
and it was ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to be under
suspension from the date of order of penalty and shall be entitled
to subsistence allowance throughout.
By order dated 20.01.2007 the petitioner was reinstated and
the enquiry proceedings were re-initiated, wherein the enquiry
officer gave his report dated 31.07.2007. The petitioner was
issued show cause notice on 03.08.2007 and after hearing him,
(3 of 4) [CW-6780/2022]
the punishment, as indicated herein before, by order dated
23.08.2007 (Annex.7) was imposed.
When at the outset, counsel for the petitioner was put a
query as to why the order has been challenged after fifteen years,
it was submitted with reference to paragraph 18 of the writ
petition that on account of lack of proper legal advice/wrong
advice, he could not challenge the same earlier. Learned counsel
further made submissions that as the petitioner was in service, he
did not feel advised to challenge the order while he was in service
and now post retirement, the petitioner is questioning the validity
of the order to the extent of punishment imposed and forfeiting
the benefits.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the order impugned was passed way back in the
year 2007. The petitioner, in view of chequered history, as noticed
herein before, wherein the petitioner has already faced criminal
trial and had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP
No.2669/2002, cannot be said to be unaware of the legal
proceedings and/or necessity to question the validity of order
impugned at the relevant time, inasmuch as the petitioner has
after passing of the order impugned remained in service for fifteen
years and the order of penalty passed had its effect throughout
those fifteen years, as his one grade increment was ordered to be
stopped with cumulative effect and all his benefits for the period
of suspension were forfeited. The plea raised regarding lack of
legal advice and/or the fact of petitioner not questioning the same
while in service, are totally spacious and cannot be countenanced.
(4 of 4) [CW-6780/2022]
The petition suffers from unexplained delay and latches on
the part of the petitioner and, therefore, no case is made out for
interference with the same after fifteen years from the date the
order impugned was passed.
Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is
dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
61-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
