Order

19/02/2025

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that joint inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner and one Sursh Chand Mishra with regard to charge of misconduct and two different charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner as well as the said co-delinquent. Counsel submits that both delinquents approached this Court by way of filing two different writ petitions. The petition submitted by the co- delinquent Suresh Chand Mishra bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2010 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2010, by which he was granted liberty to submit a representation to the respondents and the respondents were further directed to examine the matter and verify whether for the same charge, two charge-sheets were issued to him. Counsel submits that a further direction was issued to ensure expeditious conclusion of the departmental inquiry in other matter. Counsel submits that same order be passed in the present matter, as the issue involved in both the matters is same.

2. Counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. Heard and considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

4. The writ petition submitted by co-delinquent (Suresh Chand Mishra vs. State of Rajasthana and Ors.; SB Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2010) has been disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2010 with the following directions:

"Learned Counsel for Petitioner has argued that petitioner has been issued two charge-sheets on one and similar charge of misconduct. Learned counsel argued that two- charge sheets for the self same grounds cannot be issued. It is also contended that petitioner has retired from service on 20/11/2008 and the charge-sheets respectively issued on 31/7/2008 and

7/11/2008 have not so far been concluded.

Having regard to the nature of submission especially that if charge is one, two charge-sheets cannot be issued and the departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending for long period once, the concerned employee has retired, I require the petitioner to submit representation to respondent No.2, who shall examine the matter and on verification if it is found correct that for the same charge, two charge sheets have been issued. One of the charge-sheet should be dropped and he would also ensure expedition conclusion of the departmental proceedings in another matter.

With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of."

5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petition submitted by the co-delinquent Suresh Chand Mishra has been disposed of, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the similar directions, as issued in the case of Suresh Chand Mishra (supra).

7. It is made clear that if the inquiry has been completed by the respondents in pursuance of the aforesaid order, they are not required to re-open the same and if the inquiry is still pending, they would make all possible endeavor to expedite the proceedings of the same.

8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/116 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)