HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1889/2006

Prabhu Lal Choudhary son of Shri Jora Ramji Choudhary, aged

about 60 years, resident of C/o Choudhary Traders, Near

Telephone Exchange, Bilara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector-cum-Admn., Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank

Limited, Manji Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.

2. The Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited through its

Managing Director, Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Manji

Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate

assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Kamal Dave

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

26/05/2022

The petitioner was working as Manager with the Jodhpur

Cooperative Bank and was placed under suspension on

26.07.2004 just 4 days before his retirement. He retired on

31.07.2004 and post retirement, his gratuity amount was not

released.

Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has

been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, on

18.03.2006, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under

Rule 16 of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA

Rules) and the proceedings in pursuance to the same were

(2 of 5)

[CW-1889/2006]

concluded vide the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011. The inquiry

officer exonerated the petitioner qua charge No.2 but found him

guilty for supervisory negligence qua charge No.1. On the basis of

the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was

dismissed from services vide order dated 16.05.2011. After the

dismissal order being passed, the present writ petition was

amended and the order of dismissal was also put to challenge.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that firstly,

no charge-sheet could have been issued to the petitioner after his

retirement. He argued that the petitioner’s services were not

governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter

referred to as “RSR Rules”) and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “RCS Rules”) and

therefore, there being no provision available in the CCA Rules (the

Rules by which the petitioner was governed), neither any charge-

sheet could have been served on the petitioner after his

retirement nor any punishment could have been imposed on him.

Counsel further argued that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides for

a punishment to the government servant and the petitioner being

no more a government servant after his retirement, could not be

governed by the said rule and therefore, in absence of any rule or

provision of law, he could not have been punished.

Regarding the said submission, counsel relied upon the

judgments passed in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar

Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow

and Ors. (Civil Appeals No.5848-49 of 2014, decided on

30.06.2014) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi

Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. (Civil Appeal

(3 of 5)

[CW-1889/2006]

No.2101/1999, decided on 31.03.1999) reported in (1999) 3

SCC 666.

Counsel further argued that the punishment of dismissal as

imposed is totally disproportionate to the charge as framed and

proved. The petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence

and the punishment of dismissal for a guilt of supervisory

negligence is highly disproportionate. It has been submitted that

all the other persons against whom the inquiry qua the same

charges was conducted, had been exonerated by the inquiry

officer and only the petitioner had been found guilty of supervisory

negligence which also is highly questionable.

Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date

of retirement, the lien of his services with the respondent Bank

came to an end and so