Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner who is Superintending Engineer since 1983-84 is governed by the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Public Health & Engineering Department) Service Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules of 1968). The petitioner states that without there being any reason, he has been charge- sheeted vide Annex. 1 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classi-fication, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules of 1958) for imposing minor punishment. The charge-sheet is dated 23.11.1992 and concerns to the event which had taken place in the year 1988-89. It is submitted that from the bare reading of charge-sheet Annex.1 he has been charged for placing orders for purchase of C.I. Detachable Joints beyond the prescribed limits of amount at his level. There are no allegations of any misfeasant, misappropriation or any loss caused to the Government or any other misconduct except that he had exceeded of his limits to place the orders which orders according to respondents, can be placed or procured with the prior permission of Chief Engineer. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, charge-sheet has been issued to the petitionerwith ulterior motive for obstructing his promotion to the post of Addl. Chief Engineer when he had reached in the zone of such consideration, and after such consideration, and even his name is said to have kept in sealed cover. It is stated that there is no allegations that the petitioner had misused any of his powers. Rather the submission of the petitioner is, that he had duly informed the Chief Engineer atthe time of placing of orders and sought his approval at the time of placing the orders for urgent requirement of raw material and the Chief Engineer did accord his approval much before receipt of material which material were sent direct to the concerned X.Ens. and the payment was also made direct to the Divisions after the requirement had been approved. It is submitted that there was no misconduct involved nor it could amount to any misconduct and it is further submitted that whole of the charge-sheet needs to be quashed for the reason that approval or permission which was sought, at the time of placing the orders, did come from the Chief Engineer before receipt of the purchased material. It is stated that, had therebeen any misuse or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the Chief Engineer who was informed about 6 months prior to receipt of the material, instead of approving, he could have and should have stopped the approval of the orders initiated by the petitioner.

(2). It is alleged that as per Govt. Instruction dated 28.10.1988 (Annex.3), it hadbeen provided that ``as far as possible order shall be issued to all the firms in accordance with the rate contract as per demand, but the order shall be issued to one firm for three lacs only and in a circle, no order more than Rs. 5 lacs can be placed without obtaining the prior permission of the office of Chief Engineer. The allegations state that the petitioner was competent to place the orders upto Rs. 5lacks and if any order above Rs. 5 lacs for purchase of material was to be placed in that situation, prior permission of Chief Engineer was required. Admittedly in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner had placed orders of more than Rs. 10 lacks to the firm with simultaneous intimation to the Chief Engineer for approving the action, in view of the urgent need required for obtaining the joints for layingdown the water pipes which water pipes were lying at the spot but could not be utilised without the joints. Admittedly the payment was to be made by the concerned Officer i.e. Chief Engineer after receipt of the material. The petitioner had submitted the reply to the charge- sheet vide Annex.2 dated 7.12.1992. It was stated by the petitioner that many water schemes were in progress at as many as 11 placesinvolving huge expenses including the emergency schemes at Jalore & Pali where p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document