SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Raj) 792

Rajasthan High Court
Honble V.S. KOKJE & AMARESH KU. SINGH, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Mahaveer Chand - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 492 of 1996
Decided On : November 04, 1997

Advocates Appeared:
P.C. Sharma, for Appellant M.R. Singhvi, for Respondent

Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Service Rules, Rule, 86 and Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 16 – Applicability – Rajasthan Service Rules are general in nature and are applicable to the extent they are not inconsistent with any special provision – Rules of 1958 are in relation to Rajasthan Service Rules special provisions relating to disciplinary action for misconduct committed by Govt. servant and imposition of penalty on him – Held – General provisions of Rule 86 can not be invoked for altering or modifying any order passed by a competent authority under the Rules of 1958. (Para 15 & 16)(b) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 16 (9) & (10) and Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry Officer has given full opportunity to meet the charges for which the Inquiry was held – The Disciplinary Authority was not obliged to give a personal hearing before passing the order – Held – Non observance of principles of natural justice can not be made a ground for quashing otherwise legal and just orders passed by public functionaries in exercise of their statutory powers. (Para 29 & 30)

       As a result, nothing contained in rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules can be so interpreted as to confer upon the authority empowered to sanction leave under sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 86, to modify or alter the order passed under the Rules of 1958, without resorting to the relevant provisions of those Rules. It is a well established principle of the law that where the law confers a power to do a certain act and prescribes the mode in which the act is to be performed, that act must be performed in that mode and not otherwise. We, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 8th October, 87 passed under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules cannot modify or alter the order dated 5th May, 1986 passed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by the Rules of 1958. (Para 15)

Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2). Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd July, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2853/87. By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Dr. Mahaveer Chand and quashed the order dated 5th May, 1986 passed by the appellant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Conrol and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958).

(3). The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below:–

(4). The respondent-petitioner Dr. Mahaveer Chand is an employee of the State Government of Rajasthan. In the year 1981 he was serving as Lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry in S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. He liked to visit foreign countries and applied for passport. The State Government was requested to issue a ``No Objection Certificate, which was granted subject to the conditions that the applicant would proceed only after getting the sanction from the competent authority; he would not extend his leave without the prior approval of the Government; he would not undertake any study while abroad; he would not join foreign assignment while abroad and his resignation from abroad shall would not be accepted and no foreign exchange would be made available through any Government channel. The respondent obtained the passport and proceeded to visit foreign countries. In the first instance, he was granted six days Privileged Leave w.e.f. 12th October, 1981 to 17th October, 1981. Later on, the respondent applied for six months leave without pay by submitting an application in the prescribed form. The leave applied for was granted by the State Government vide letter dated 24th December, 1981. The res- pondent moved another application for grant of further leave for the period from 18th April, 1981 to 17th October, 1982. This application was also granted by the State Government vide order dated 27th April, 1982. The respondent did not join his duties and moved another application for leave for the period from 18th October, 1982 to 17th April, 1983. This application was allowed and leave was granted to him vide order dated 16th December, 1981. The endorsement made on the copy of the order dated 16.12.82 (Annex.6) was to the effect that future leave would be considered on returning from abroad. No further leave was granted to the respondent subsequent to 16th April, 1982. The respondent remained outside the country and moved applications for further, but no further leave was granted to him. He returned to India and resumed his duties on 19th May, 1984. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 6th December, 1983, and therefore, on19th May, 1984 when he reported for duty, he was treated as under suspension. The suspension order was recalled vide order dated 15th March 1985 and w.e.f. 15th March, 1985 the applicant continued to work on his post. On 16th August, 1985 an order was passed to the effect that the respondent would be deemed to have remained under awaiting of posting orders from 15th March, 1985 to 5th April, 1985. In the same order, it was further observed that the respondent shall be treated as on duty during the period from 15th March, 1985 to 5th April, 1985 and that is pay and allowances will be regularised in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules.

(5). The respondent applied for leave from time to time, but leave was not granted. The State Government commenced an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The Memorandum, Statement of allegations and Charge-sheet was served on the respondent. He submitted his reply and a departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was conducted by the Commi- ssioner, Departmental Enquiries, Jaipur.

(6). After conducting the inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries gave his












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top