Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government servant were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction and influence from a Minister, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The case in hands is a classic case portraying victimization of a Government Servant in the hands of higher authorities. And when the strings are in the hands of none other than the Minister of the Department, it is feat certain that the officers including the disciplinary authorities would act in tandem with the instructions in order to appease him or to avert his displeasure.

2. The facts behind the above prelude are, that :-

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 02.01.1980 in respondent No.4-Chhatargarh Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Samiti’) and was later reached the post of Manager and was working as such.

2.2. In the meantime, the State Government introduced the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service for Selection of Chief Executives/Executive Officers for Apex Co-operative Institutions and District Level Banking/ Wholesale Consumer and Marketing Co-operative Institutions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1995’), providing for appointment on the post of the General Manager. The Rules of 1995 provide the manner of selection and other related provision and clearly provide that the appointing authority shall be Government of Rajasthan or any other authority empowered for this purpose by the State.

2.3. The petitioner after undergoing the prescribed procedure, was appointed on the post of the General Manager of the society by way of order dated 21.09.1995. The appointment order clearly mentioned that his tenure would be for three years or till the date of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

2.4. While the petitioner was working as General Manager, a complaint came to be filed by the respondent No.6-Hari Kishan Joshi; a preliminary inquiry in relation to the allegations was got conducted by the Joint Registrar, who found all the allegations to be false and thus, furnished a report dated 14.03.1997. While giving clean chit, the inquiry officer had clearly observed that said Hari Kishan Joshi has raised very same issues earlier also, and every time such allegations were found false.

2.5. Since said Hari Kishan Joshi persisted upon his complaint, another preliminary inquiry was ordered to be held and this time by the Administrator. The Administrator too gave a report dated 24.05.1997 that the petitioner was not guilty of any financial irregularities or corruption.

2.6. Suddenly, an order dated 04.09.1997 came to be passed by the Joint Registrar, whereby one Vinod Chokdar was given charge of the General Manager of the Samiti and simultaneously the Administrator of the Samiti was directed to place the petitioner under suspension and initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 1958’).

2.7. The order aforesaid was scrupulously rather religiously complied with and the petitioner was suspended by way of order dated 11.09.1997 with a stipulation that a separate charge-sheet and memorandum of charges was in offing.

2.8. A notice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings alongwith memorandum of charges also came to be issued to the petitioner on 23.09.1997.

2.9. The petitioner submitted consent of one Manmal Sharma to act as his defence counsel, but even such assistance of defence counsel was not allowed to the petitioner, and as alleged by the petitioner, copies of various documents which he demanded also were not provided to him.

2.10. The petitioner filed a preliminary reply dated 06.02.1998 while seeking leave to file detailed reply on receipt of the documents. Needless to mention that the petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him.

2.11. Inquiry officer conducted and concluded the inquiry and forwarded his report (page No.161) to the disciplinary authority. A notice dated 13.11.1998 came to be issued alongwith a copy of the inquiry report and the petitioner was asked to fur