Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6788 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6788 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 4 September, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023:RJ-JD:27853]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10160/2017

Teja Ram S/o Shri Ramdin Ji, Resident Of D/91, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Merta City, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Ka-3/inquiry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The District Collector, Nagaur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Vinay Jain
                                Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. M.C. Bishnoi
                                Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

04/09/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the charge-sheet issued to him inter-alia contending

that the same has been issued illegally.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner who was working

as Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department was to

superannuate on 30.04.2017 and as 29.04.2017 and 30.04.2017

happened to be Saturday and Sunday respectively, he was asked

to handover the charge to one Raj Singh Rathore, Deputy Director

of the Department on the forenoon of 28.04.2017.

3. Impugned memorandum of charges came to be issued to the

petitioner on 28.04.2017.

[2023:RJ-JD:27853] (2 of 4) [CW-10160/2017]

4. The case set up by the petitioner is that the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against him are illegal, inasmuch as the

same were initiated by memorandum of charges which was served

upon him on 22.06.2017, when he had already retired.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contention

of the respondents that the memorandum of charges was issued

and served upon the petitioner on 28.04.2017 itself is

unacceptable; the memorandum of charges was ante-dated and

was served upon the petitioner along with the forwarding letter

dated 22.06.2017, after he had retired.

6. Learned counsel further argued that the disciplinary

proceedings instituted against the petitioner are illegal and

violative of Rule 7(2)(b)(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996),

inasmuch as the same was instituted after the petitioner had

retired without the sanction of the Governor, by serving

memorandum of charges on 22.06.2017.

7. Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat learned counsel for the respondents

invited Court's attention towards provision contained in Rule 7(6)

(a) of the Rules of 1996 and argued that the disciplinary

proceedings cannot be claimed to have been instituted against the

petitioner after he had retired, as Rule 7(6)(a) stipulates that a

Disciplinary Inquiry shall be deemed to have been instituted on

the date when charge-sheet was issued.

8. She argued that since the expression used is 'issued' and not

'served', the disciplinary inquiry is valid as the same was instituted

by issuing memorandum of charges on 28.04.2017 and

admittedly, on such date the petitioner was still in service.

[2023:RJ-JD:27853] (3 of 4) [CW-10160/2017]

9. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon a

Coordinate Bench judgment dated 10.05.2016, rendered in the

case of Dr. Ramakant Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.;

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3045/2015 and submitted that the

petitioner's contention is untenable in light of the express

provisions contained in Rule 7(6)(a) of the Rules of 1996 and in

light of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Ramakant Dixit

(supra).

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

11. On the basis of material available on record, this Court is not

much convinced with the petitioner's assertion that the

memorandum of charges which were served upon him after he

had retired was shown to have been issued on a back date. It is a

highly disputed question of fact and the same cannot be

determined by this court under its writ jurisdiction, at least on the

basis of material so far placed on record.

12. In the opinion of this Court, simply because the

memorandum of charges was served upon the petitioner on

22.06.2017, it cannot be presumed that the same was ante-dated,

particularly when the memorandum of charges bears the date of

28.04.2017.

13. So far as petitioner's contention that the memorandum of

charges has been issued in violation of Rule 7(2)(b)(i) of the Rules

of 1996 is concerned, the same has been succinctly dealt with by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the judgment of Ramakant

Dixit (supra) in following words:

"The above provision itself provides that departmental proceedings shall be deemed

[2023:RJ-JD:27853] (4 of 4) [CW-10160/2017]

to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based are issued to the Government servant or pensioner. The provision does not contemplate service of the charge sheet for the purpose of institution of the departmental proceedings and as such in the present case as the charge sheet was issued on 31.07.2014 i.e., on the last date when the petitioner was still in service, it cannot be said that the same required sanction of the Governor under Rule 7(2)