Rajasthan High Court
Manak Chand Khandelwal vs Raj Vidhut Prasaran Nigam ... on 8 May, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:22557]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 876/2001
Manak Chand Khandelwal S/o Late Shri V.R. Khandelwal, aged
about 56 years, resident of L-20, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road,
Durgapura, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Vidhut Parsaran Nigam, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, R.C. Dave Marg, Vidhut Bhawan Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
08/05/2024
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) the writ petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed and the relevant record may
kindly be called for and be perused by this Hon'ble
Court, if so pleases;
ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent may be directed to restore the position
of the petitioner as Executive Engineer from the
date of his reversion treating as if no reversion
order was ever passed with all other consequential
benefits.
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case same may kindly be
granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. The crux of the instant matter is that the petitioner was
appointed as a 'Junior Engineer' with the respondent-
department in the Year 1971. Thereafter, vide order dated
19.08.1992 (Annexure-1) was promoted from the post of
[2024:RJ-JP:22557] (2 of 5) [CW-876/2001]
Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer (E&M) on
ad-hoc and temporary basis.
3. It is submitted that vide order dated 13.11.1996
(Annexure-2), the post in which the petitioner was appointed
was subjected to 'Reversion' without any reasonable reason,
allegation or without giving any opportunity of being heard. The
petitioner submitted a representation against the said reversion
order on 16.12.1996 and 27.01.1997, but a deaf ear was given
to the said representations. It was only on 29.01.1997, that a
memorandum was issued qua the petitioner stating that as per
the inquiry carried out under Regulation No. 7(1) of RSEB
Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations,
1962, the charge levelled against the petitioner qua his failure
to observe the rules, while revising the estimate of 65
agriculture consumers of nursery category, wherein a loss upto
the tune of 7.3 lacs was alleged by the respondents.
4. Furthermore, in this regard the petitioner had submitted a
detailed reply qua the allegations of the charge-sheet dated
28.04.1997 and has categorically denied the said allegations.
Moreover, it was submitted that qua the said charge-sheet, the
petitioner has already been exonerated.
5. Vide order dated 31.08.1998, the petitioner was informed
that disciplinary proceedings as per Regulation 6 (Minor
penalties) of the RSEB Rules, 1962 will be initiated qua him.
(Annexure-4)
6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the reversion order qua the petitioner was
[2024:RJ-JP:22557] (3 of 5) [CW-876/2001]
passed in the year 1996, whereas the charge-sheet was issued
in the year 1997. Hence, the reversion made vide order dated
13.11.1996 is perverse and arbitrary in nature.
7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the dictum of judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court encapsulated in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of
India reported in 1958 AIR (SC) 36.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised
a preliminary objection and has submitted that the instant
petition is not tenable on account of delay and laches as the
reversion order was passed in the year 1996 and petition was
preferred in the year 2001. Learned Counsel has submitted that
(Annexure-1) i.e. promotion order dated 19.08.1992 was issued
with the caveat that no right, qua the promotion will be given to
the petitioner as the same was issued only on temporary basis.
Therefore, even if there is no allegations or charges specifically
mentioned, the order is still valid.
9. Heard and considered.
10. Taking in account, the arguments advanced by counsel for
both the sides, upon perusal of the records and considering the
judgments cited at Bar, the following facts are noteworthy:-
10.1 That the petitioner was in regular service ever since
year 1971. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.08.1992, he was
promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of
Executive Engineer. It goes without saying that the said order,
was for a temporary period and was not assigning any vested
right.
[2024:RJ-JP:22557] (4 of 5) [CW-876/2001]
10.2 That the Charge-sheet (Annexure-5), issued in the
year 1998 gives a reflection that the reversion order was passed
on account of purported lack of supervision causing financial
loss to the respondent-department. Though, it is pertinent to
note that the petitioner has been exonerated from the alleged
charges.
10.3 The record reflects that during the course of enquiry,
principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem were not
followed, insofar as no opportunity of being heard and voicing
defense was provided to the petitioner.
10.4 That while considering the petitioners case, as per
the Regulation No. 5 of Employees Classification Control and
Appeal Regulation, 1962, it is noted that 'Reversion' is a major
penalty as classified under Regulation 5(e) and Regulation 7,
which when imposed, mandates the specified procedure to be
followed, wherein, principle of audi alteram partem, issuance of
charge-sheet etc. is mandatory.
11. In light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it
is evident that when the due procedure is not followed,
imposition of a major penalty i.e. reversion is arbitrary and void
ab initio. Moreover, the impugned order was issued in the year
1996 whereas, the alleged charges/ charge-sheet pertains to
year 1997 and in any possible case, retrospective effect to the
alleged charges can not be effectuated.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition ought to be allowed in
terms of the prayer sought, with all consequential relief.
[2024:RJ-JP:22557] (5 of 5) [CW-876/2001]
13. As a result, the petition is allowed. Pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
