Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Guljhari Lal Meena S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Meena - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.) - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8791/2021
Decided On : 29-07-2021
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Balia
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
POINT OF LAW: A person must know the case that he is to meet; and (ii) He must have an adequate opportunity of meeting that case. These rules of natural justice, however, operate in voids of a statute.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - charges of corruption - Notice - Mis-appropriation of public money - Financial irregularities - Petitioner had been discharging his duties as Principal and Controller of Dr. SN Medical College, Jodhpur, when he came to receive a notice issued by the respondent no.2 calling upon him to appear before Committee headed by Chief Secretary, which consisted 3 other members Principal Secretary (Personnel), Secretary, Medical Education Department and Vice-Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur - Committee under a belief that respondents are going to initiate some disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958 as has been indicated in the notice - Petitioner has also averred that when he appeared before Committee -
Finding of the Court:
Mechanical exercise of power or for non-supply of inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into - Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of Rule 5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry - Principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed - Non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary - It will comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced – Court said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under law only one penalty is permissible - Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs –
Result: Writ petition succeeds
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner-a Senior Professor in the department of Radio-Diagnosis, Medical College, Bikaner was posted as Principal and Controller of Medical College, Bikaner vide order dated 3.3.2020. His selection to head the Medical College as Principal and Controller was made pursuant to recommendation made by a Selection Committee constituted in this regard.
2. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Medical College, Jodhpur as Principal and Controller vide order dated 4.3.2020.
3. The petitioner had been discharging his duties as Principal and Controller of Dr. SN Medical College, Jodhpur, when he came to receive a notice dated 15.6.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 calling upon him to appear on 17.6.2021 at 11.30 am before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, which consisted 3 other members, namely, Principal Secretary (Personnel), Secretary, Medical Education Department and Vice-Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur.
4. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the Committee under a belief that the respondents are going to initiate some disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), as has been indicated in the notice dated 15.6.2021. The petitioner has also averred that when he appeared before the Committee, he was asked questions about certain purchases made in the month of October, 2020, which were duly answered/responded by him, whereafter he was sent back.
5. An order dated 5.7.2021, came to be received by the petitioner indicating that his selection as the Principal and Controller has been cancelled. Simultaneous with the order aforesaid, another order was issued vide which the petitioner has been posted as Senior Professor Radio Diagnosis at Bikaner.
6. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 5.7.2021, whereby petitioner’s selection as Principal and Controller has been cancelled, petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court invoking its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the process of selection of Principal and Controller is governed by the circular of the Government, which has now been substituted by the Circular dated 20.10.2020. While pointing out that said circular has been relied upon by the respondents in non-suiting him, he argued that according to paras nos.11 and 12 of the circular, if any inquiry about serious charges or charges of corruption etc. is to be conducted, the same is required to be done by District Collector or Divisional Commissioner or any other competent authority or the committee referred to in clause (2) of the circular. And it is only on the basis of the report of such competent authority, that selection of a Principal and Controller can be cancelled, that too, after providing him an opportunity of hearing.
8. Learned counsel argued that the notice dated 15.6.2021 to appear on 17.6.2021 indicated that the State has taken a decision to initiate inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. While raising a grievance that hardly a day’s time was allowed to the petitioner to appear before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, learned counsel contended that the Committee did not provide him proper opportunity of hearing and that the petitioner was not at all aware, as to what action the respondents proposed to take against him and what was the material on which the action was proposed to be taken.
9. He argued that it was only on receipt of the impugned order dated 5.7.2021, the petitioner came to know that his appointment as Principal and Controller has been cancelled that too on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee (as indicated in the departmental circular dated 20.10.2020) and also because an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules is contemplated against him.
10. It was submitted that para no.12 of the departmental circular da
