Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Satya Prakash Gautam - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ No. 16319 of 2017
Decided On : 22-10-2018
CHARGESHEET - VAGUENESS - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 16 - The court quashed a charge-sheet issued to a government employee on the last date of his retirement, finding it vague and lacking specific details. The charge-sheet alleged dereliction of duty for refusing to remain present at a site during a ministerial visit, but it did not specify whether the minister actually visited the site or the consequences of the employee's absence. The court also noted that the employee was not provided with a statement of allegations or a list of witnesses and documents, as required by the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was issued a charge-sheet on the last date of his retirement, alleging dereliction of duty for refusing to remain present at a site during a ministerial visit. The charge-sheet was vague and did not specify whether the minister actually visited the site or the consequences of the employee's absence. The employee was also not provided with a statement of allegations or a list of witnesses and documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was vague and lacking specific details, and that the employee was not provided with a statement of allegations or a list of witnesses and documents, as required by the rules. The court also noted that the charge-sheet was issued on the last date of the employee's retirement, which suggested malafide intent.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet was vague and lacking specific details? 2. Whether the employee was provided with a statement of allegations or a list of witnesses and documents? 3. Whether the charge-sheet was issued with malafide intent?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge-sheet was vague and lacking specific details, and that the employee was not provided with a statement of allegations or a list of witnesses and documents, as required by the rules. The court also noted that the charge-sheet was issued on the last date of the employee's retirement, which suggested malafide intent. The court relied on the principles of natural justice and the requirement for specific charges in disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge-sheet and directed the government to pay the employee his retiral benefits with interest within six weeks.
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2017 (Annex.-8) and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet. Further relief has been claimed for releasing the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 07.10.1978 in the respondent-Department, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 26.08.2013. It is claimed that during the entire service career, the petitioner never suffered any punishment.
2. On 07.05.2016, it claimed that the petitioner received a call from the then Executive Engineer for lodging an FIR against one agriculturist and also to inspect the site as the petitioner was holding additional charge of the place in question. It is claimed that the charge with the petitioner was only to the extent of disbursing of the salary and not for any other purpose, which was informed by the petitioner to the then Executive Engineer and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner was made Awaiting Posting Order (APO) and was asked to report for his duty at Jaipur, for which, he was relieved on 01.08.2016.
3. On 17.08.2016, the petitioner moved an application for changing his headquarter as he was due to retire within a period of five months and was suffering from various ailments. For the said purpose, when the requisite file was sent to the office of Minister concerned, he directed that first charge-sheet be issued to the petitioner. On 03.01.2017, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein it was indicated that the Minister concerned was to visit the site when the petitioner was not present and, therefore, he was asked to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings may not be taken against him.
4. The petitioner gave a response to the show cause notice, inter alia, indicating that the additional charge given to him was confined to disbursement/payment of salary and that there was no requirement to undertake any other work even as he was already holding charge of two more posts. The communication regarding the visit of the Minister was denied and it was prayed that the show cause notice may be dropped.
5. On 31.01.2017 i.e. the date of retirement, a photocopy of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules') was issued to the petitioner alleging delinquency, no date pertaining to the incident was specified and it is claimed that the charge-sheet itself was vague and it was not accompanied by the list of witnesses/documents etc., even details of statement of allegations were not annexed.
6. The petitioner submitted an application dated 10.02.2017 for providing him the details of programme of the Minister, which was not provided to the petitioner, despite approaching two authorities.
7. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 08.09.2017. It was alleged that despite passage of sufficiently long time, nothing was done on part of the respondents and the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld due to pendency of the alleged inquiry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments of the writ petition would clearly reveal that the charge-sheet was a colourable exercise of power on part of the persons concerned and was issued only with a view to victimize and harass the petitioner, which is evident from the fact that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the last date of service despite issuance of No Dues Certificate certifying that no inquiry was pending against the petitioner.
8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare look at the documents annexed with the writ petition would reveal that by order dated 04.05.2016 (Annex.-7), th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
