[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 730/2023

Ajit Singh S/o Late Shri Makhan Singh, Aged About 69 Years, By

Caste Rai Sikh, R/o Ward No. 9, Suratgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Irrigation

Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Rajasthan, Irrigation

Bhawan, Jaipur.

3.

The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-Iii),

Secretariat, Jaipur.

4.

The Commissioner, Department Of Inquiries, Rajasthan,

Department Of Personnel, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Prateek Surana

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

19/10/2023

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner was

dismissed.

2.

Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that the

appellant-petitioner, while working as a Junior Engineer in the

respondent-Department, was found responsible for shortage in

stock of coal as well as for change in the grade of coal. As such, a

Preliminary Enquiry was conducted against the appellant-

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB]

(2 of 5)

[SAW-730/2023]

petitioner and vide order dated 19.06.1985, he was placed under

suspension. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 19.05.1987 under

Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon him on 30.07.1987. Three

charges were framed against the appellant-petitioner. To probe

into the matter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. However, during

the pendency of the enquiry, vide order dated 06.03.1988, the

appellant-petitioner was reinstated in service. After completion of

the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated

09.07.1997 to the disciplinary authority, wherein the charges

levelled against the appellant-petitioner were found to be proved.

The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report and

the reply submitted by the appellant-petitioner as also after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner,

imposed punishment of dismissal of the appellant-petitioner from

services vide order dated 22.04.1999.In these circumstances, the

appellant-petitioner aggrieved against the dismissal order dated

22.04.1999 preferred a writ petition before this Court which was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated

03.07.2023.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently

submitted that the alleged forged document was actually

signed/verified by Mr. K. C. Kothari, who was one of the

delinquent, facing the enquiry along with the appellant-petitioner.

He further submitted that Mr. K. C. Kothari was exonerated but the

charges against the appellant-petitioner were held to be proved.

He, also submitted that charge-sheet was filed against the five

persons namely (1). Mr. K. C. Kothari, Executive Engineer,

[2023:RJ-JD:36161-DB]

(3 of 5)

[SAW-730/2023]

(2). Mr. P. S. Pandit, Executive Engineer, (3) Mr. Kalu Ram,

Assistant Engineer, (4) Mr. S. D. Saxena, Assistant Engineer &

(5) Mr. Ajit Singh, Junior Engineer; out of which enquiry against

Mr. P. S. Pandit, Executive Engineer was dropped on account of his

death & Mr. K. C. Kothari was discharged & Mr. Kalu Ram,

Assistant Engineer & Mr. S. D. Saxena, Assistant Engineer were

punished with minor penalties only. Whereas, the appellant-

petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal. As such, the

appellant-petitioner was discriminated vis-a-vis other three

persons.

4.

Learned counsel submitted that the document which was

stated to be forged, is actually not forged as it was verified by the

departmental authorit