Ajit Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8710 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 730/2023

Ajit Singh S/o Late Shri Makhan Singh, Aged About 69 Years, By Caste Rai Sikh, R/o Ward No. 9, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Rajasthan, Irrigation Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-Iii), Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Commissioner, Department Of Inquiries, Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel, Jaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Prateek Surana

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

19/10/2023

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner was

dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that the

appellant-petitioner, while working as a Junior Engineer in the

respondent-Department, was found responsible for shortage in

stock of coal as well as for change in the grade of coal. As such, a

Preliminary Enquiry was conducted against the appellant-

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-730/2023]

petitioner and vide order dated 19.06.1985, he was placed under

suspension. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 19.05.1987 under

Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon him on 30.07.1987. Three

charges were framed against the appellant-petitioner. To probe

into the matter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. However, during

the pendency of the enquiry, vide order dated 06.03.1988, the

appellant-petitioner was reinstated in service. After completion of

the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated

09.07.1997 to the disciplinary authority, wherein the charges

levelled against the appellant-petitioner were found to be proved.

The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report and

the reply submitted by the appellant-petitioner as also after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner,

imposed punishment of dismissal of the appellant-petitioner from

services vide order dated 22.04.1999.In these circumstances, the

appellant-petitioner aggrieved against the dismissal order dated

22.04.1999 preferred a writ petition before this Court which was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated

03.07.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently

submitted that the alleged forged document was actually

signed/verified by Mr. K. C. Kothari, who was one of the

delinquent, facing the enquiry along with the appellant-petitioner.

He further submitted that Mr. K. C. Kothari was exonerated but the

charges against the appellant-petitioner were held to be proved.

He, also submitted that charge-sheet was filed against the five

persons namely (1). Mr. K. C. Kothari, Executive Engineer,

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-730/2023]

(2). Mr. P. S. Pandit, Executive Engineer, (3) Mr. Kalu Ram,

Assistant Engineer, (4) Mr. S. D. Saxena, Assistant Engineer &

(5) Mr. Ajit Singh, Junior Engineer; out of which enquiry against

Mr. P. S. Pandit, Executive Engineer was dropped on account of his

death & Mr. K. C. Kothari was discharged & Mr. Kalu Ram,

Assistant Engineer & Mr. S. D. Saxena, Assistant Engineer were

punished with minor penalties only. Whereas, the appellant-

petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal. As such, the

appellant-petitioner was discriminated vis-a-vis other three

persons.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the document which was

stated to be forged, is actually not forged as it was verified by the

departmental authorities including Mr. K. C. Kothari, thus, the

disciplinary authority committed an error while treating the said

document as forged. Learned counsel further submitted that

before the disciplinary authority, a number of documents were

submitted but the same were not considered, however, he submits

that the documents which were provided to the appellant-

petitioner and the documents which were perused by the

appellant-petitioner were only the relied upon documents, while

considering the case of the appellant-petitioner.

5. Learned counsel also submitted that the Enquiry Officer had

not correctly considered the documents and had committed an

error while holding the charges to have been proved against the

appellant-petitioner.

6. On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the counsel

for the appellant that whether any document which was relied

upon by the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to him or the same

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-730/2023]

was not allowed to be inspected/perused by him, learned counsel

very fairly submitted that all those documents which were

considered and relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, the copies of

some of the documents were supplied to the appellant-petitioner

and rest of the documents were inspected by him.

7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

have gone through the relevant record of the case as well as the

order impugned dated 03.07.2023.

8. The principal argument of the counsel for the appellant that

the document which is alleged to be forged was not actually

forged as the same was signed and verified by the two persons of

the Department including one Mr. K. C. Kothari who had faced the

enquiry along with the appellant was discharged and, thus that

document cannot be treated to be a forged, is not convincing for

the simple reason that Mr. K. C. Kothari was exonerated

considering the delinquency on his part and the evaluation of the

evidence qua him for the charges faced by him whereas, the

specific charges framed against the appellant were conclusively

proved by the evidence led in the Enquiry, therefore, in our

opinion, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority

is just and proper. Further, the documents, which were relied upon

by the Enquiry Officer for arriving at the decision, were duly

supplied to and inspected by the appellant-petitioner, thus, it

cannot be said that the copies of the relied upon documents were

not given to the appellant-petitioner and there was any violation

of the principles of natural justice.

9. On a careful evaluation of the evidence brought before the

Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, the decision has been taken

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-730/2023]

and no infirmity has been pointed out by the appellant-petitioner

to create any doubt in the same. We further find that the factual

finding of fact recorded is based on cogent material available on

record and the decision taken is also supported by the reasons.

10. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that

the charges framed against the appellant-petitioner were duly

proved in the Enquiry and the appellant-petitioner was given all

reasonable opportunity to defend his case in compliance of the

principles of natural justice.

11. Further, since it is only a judicial review of the process and

not of the decision, we are of the view that since no infirmity in

the judicial process was pointed out, thus, no error has been

committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

petition.

12. In view of the discussions made above, no interference is

warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

13. The appeal is devoid of force and the same is hereby

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

23-Anil Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)