Mohammed Husain Ansari vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8652 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35812]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3146/2021

Kishan Agarwal S/o Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Agarwal , R/o Flat No 106, A Block , Riddhi - Siddhi Apartment , Bhuvana , Udaipur , Presently Posted As Commercial Tax Officer , Circle Business Audit , Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary , Commercial Tax Department , Secretariat , Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Governance Joint Secretary, Personnel (Kha-3/iquiry) Department , State Of Rajasthan , Jaipur

3. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department , Ambedkar Circle , Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax Office, Rajasthan , Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3994/2023 Mohammed Husain Ansari S/o Abdul Hakim Ansari, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 11, Murshid Nagar, Barkat Colony, Savina Udaipur, Presently Posted As Deputy Commissioner, Under Suspension, Head Quarter Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Governance Joint Secretary, Personnel (Kha-3/inquiry) Department, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. Governance Joint Secretary, Finance (Tax) Department, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paramveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Bhandawat

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

18/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue

involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the

[2023:RJ-JD:35812] (2 of 3) [CW-3146/2021]

judgment dated 13.09.2021, passed by this Court in case of

Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.2682/2021.

2. Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and

law, in spite of his emphatic arguments.

3. In case of Bhagirath Ram (supra), while deciding identical

controversy in para No.27, the following timeline was fixed:

"27(i) The disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed for a period of three years from today.

(ii) Petitioner will be required to file his statement in defence/reply along with the list of witnesses (if any) within a period of 30 days from today. Such period is extendable by not more than 30 days for reasons to be recorded by the disciplinary authority, if facts and circumstances so warrant.

(iii) After completion of three years, the disciplinary authority shall resume the proceedings by giving at least a 15 days' notice to the delinquent/employee of his intentions so to do and to inform about the status of criminal case.

(iv) It will be required of the petitioner - employee to place relevant material, including copies of the order- sheets/ proceedings of the Court, stage of the trial, list of witnesses and number of witnesses examined by that time and any other relevant information.

(v) The petitioner will be free to make a request to adjourn the proceedings further, while indicating reasons and grounds for the same.

(vi) The disciplinary authority in such event, shall independently apply his mind on the material placed and progression of the criminal case and decide as to whether

[2023:RJ-JD:35812] (3 of 3) [CW-3146/2021]

the enquiry is required to be stayed any further.

(vii) In case, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the enquiry is required to be kept on hold any further, he will keep the same in abeyance for a further period, not more than two years.

(viii) On completion of such period (total five years), the disciplinary authority shall take up the proceedings by appointing an inquiry officer under intimation to the petitioner, who shall, then, proceed in accordance withlaw, while following procedure provided under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules of 1958.

(ix) Needless to observe that if criminal case itself is decided either way, during the aforesaid period of three/five years, the disciplinary authority shall be free to resume the inquiry, of course while observing principles of natural justice.

(x) Above time frame is a broad guideline and directory in nature; non adherence thereto will not per-se vitiate the proceedings."

4. The present writ petitions also stand disposed of in terms of

Bhagirath Ram (supra). The disciplinary proceedings shall be kept

in abeyance in terms thereof.

5. The respondents shall, however, be free to initiate the same, in

accordance with law, albeit as per above timeline.

6. All interlocutory application(s) including the stay applications

stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 626 & 627-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)