Rajasthan High Court
Moti Lal Meena Son Of Late Shri Hanuta Ram ... vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:44546-Db) on 23 October, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:44546-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13824/2024
Moti Lal Meena Son Of Late Shri Hanuta Ram Meena, Aged About
71 Years, Resident Of Mandawar, Near Purana Bus Stand, District
Dausa, Rajasthan Pin Code- 321609 And Retired On 31/05/2011
From The Post Of Deputy Director General (Stores), Directorate
Of Government Health Services, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary (Health), Ministry Of
Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110011
2. Director General (Health Services), Directorate Of Health
Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Chandra Bhan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sumit Teterwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
23/10/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by
the order dated 04th April, 2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the
Tribunal"), whereby the Original Application No.175/2022 was
dismissed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
charge sheet was challenged by the petitioner in earlier Original
Application, wherein direction was given on 21 st September, 2021
to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months. It is also
[2024:RJ-JP:44546-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13824/2024]
contended that within a period of six months, enquiry was not
concluded, therefore, the petitioner filed another Original
Application for quashing the charges. It is contended that when
notices of this Original Application were served on the
respondents, they moved miscellaneous application for extension
of time and the Tribunal extended the time by six months.
4. It is contended that even during the extended period of six
months, final order was not passed and the same was passed in
May, 2023. It is also contended that any action done beyond the
period of six months deserves to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satpil Antil & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.11747/2012 decided on 19th August, 2014.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
petition. It is contended that judgment referred to by learned
counsel for the petitioner is not akin to the facts of this case.
7. It is also contended that merely because the time has been
given for conclusion of enquiry and for passing final order, that
does not mean that anything done beyond that time is invalid.
8. We have considered the contentions.
9. We are of the considered view that merely because some
time-line has been provided by the Court, that does not ipso facto
mean that anything done beyond that time would be invalid. The
petitioner has raised only this ground before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned
order.
[2024:RJ-JP:44546-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13824/2024]
10. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner,
does not apply to the facts of the present case, as in the case of
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satpil Antil & Anr. (supra), the Tribunal
had directed the respondent - Union to conclude the enquiry
finally within a period of six months, failing which, initiation of
proceedings shall be deemed to have been quashed and set aside.
However, no such order has been passed in the present case.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the
impugned order so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Preeti Asopa /39
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
