Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 1077
(Rajasthan High Court)
Kishan Sunder Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Kishan Sunder Sharma
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 987 of 2002, decided on 21.12.2012
L.M. Lodha, for Petitioner;
Mukul Singhvi, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 16 and 18; Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 7 — For the same misconduct passing two separate orders in a joint enquiry — Enquiry conducted jointly against the petitioner and three co-delinquents — The pensionary benefits of the petitioner were forfeited for his life time on the ground that inspite of granting time no reply was filed by him to the enquiry report — By a separate order the co-delinquents were exonerated solely on the ground that they filed reply to the enquiry report — Held — The procedure adopted is patently illegal — No separate orders can be passed in a joint enquiry on this ground — Once the enquiry was conducted jointly, then a joint final order was to be passed for all the delinquents to hold them guilty or to exonerate them — Whole or any part of the pension can be forfeited only to recover pecuniary loss suffered by the Govt. — Impugned order being not sustainable, quashed and set aside.
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 24 to 30)
jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1958] fu;e 16 o 18( jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e] 1996] fu;e 7 & ,d la;qDr tkap esa mlh nqjkpj.k gsrq nks i`Fkd-i`Fkd vkns'k ikfjr djuk & izkFkhZ ,oa rhu vU; vipkfj;ksa ds fo:) la;qDr :i ls tkap dh xbZ & bl vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds isa'ku ifjykHk vkthou tCr fd;s x;s fd le; nsus ds ckotwn Hkh mlds }kjk tkap fjiksVZ dk tokc nk;j ugha fd;k x;k & ,d vU; i`Fkd vkns'k ls ;g vipkfj;ksa dks ,d ek= bl vk/kkj ij nks"k eqDr fd;k x;k fd mUgksaus tkap fjiksVZ dk tokc nk;j fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & viuk;h xbZ izfØ;k Li"V :i ls voS/k gS & bl vk/kkj ij la;qDr tkap esa dksbZ i`Fkd i`Fkd vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;s tk ldrs & ,d ckj tc tkap la;qDr :i ls dh x;h gks rks leLr vipkfj;ksa dks nks"kh Bgjkrs gq, ;k nks"keqDr djrs gq, ,d la;qDr vfUre vkns'k ikfjr djuk Fkk & lEiw.kZ isa'ku ;k mldk dqN va'k ljdkj dks gqbZ vkfFkZd gkfu dh HkjikbZ gsrq gh tCr dh tk ldrh gS & vk{ksfir vkns'k fLFkj djus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 24 ls 30½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
2. As per facts of the case, a joint inquiry was conducted against the petitioner three other officials of the respondent Public Works Department by the DOP (Department of Personnel) vide Annex. 2 dated 25.4.1998 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, to be called hereinafter as "the CCA Rules"). The petitioner and other delinquents filed their reply and, thereafter, the inquiry officer proceeded to conduct the joint inquiry against all of them, viz., petitioner Kishan Sunder Sharma, Store Keeper, R.L. Boliya, Superintending Engineer, Pramod Kumar Sharma, L.D.C. and Anil Kumar Shah, L.D.C. After conclusion of the inquiry the inquiry officer submitted its report on 29.2.2000 while holding all the delinquents guilty.
3. The DOP sent a notice while annexing a copy of the inquiry report to inter alia the petitioner on 28.3.2000, by which, the delinquents were directed to furnish their reply within 15 days against the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The petitioner however made a request to grant some more time to file reply to the inquiry report because the inquiry report is running in more than 100 pages. The petitioner has placed on record Annex. 7 to prove the fact that application was filed by him to grant some time to file reply to the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer.
4. Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Disciplinary Authority did not respond to the request made by the petitioner for extension of time, therefore, the same amounts to refusal on the part of the respondents to extend the time. The respondent No. 2 along with other respondents sent inquiry report to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for approval and the Commission approved the proposed punishment vide letter dated 24.3.2001; and thereafter, vide order Annex. 10 severe penalty was imposed against the petitioner whereby the whole pension of the petitioner and his all pensionary benefits are forfeited for his life-time vide the impugned order.
5. In the writ petition, it is pleaded by the petitioner that inquiry conducted against him and other officials by the inquiry officer was totally against the principles of natural justice because inspite of making the prayer to supply documents during the inquiry the copies were not supplied, the petitioner raised the objection and wanted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who were produced in the inquiry to prove the charges but the said opportunity was not granted and, while replying upon the prosecution story, the inquiry officer held that charges are proved; but, in fact, the inquiry has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and was merely an eye-wash in order to hold the petitioner guilty for the alleged baseless charges. The petitioner was never asked to produce any witnesses in defence, so also, opportunity to cross-examine was not provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the inquiry officer did not allow the petitioner to produce even any document in rebuttal, therefore, it can be said that the departmental inquiry was conducted in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules and, upon that, inflected severe punishment against the petitioner.
6. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that after receiving copy of the inquiry report and notice although the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 15 days but an application was file
