Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sunita Dixit vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6163/2021 Smt. Sunita Dixit W/o Shri Bhupendra Dixit, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Badi Sadri District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
06/07/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2021, whereby she has been dismissed from service, in exercise of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules of 1958".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting Court's attention towards the basic facts, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as the Librarian in June, 1995. A criminal case No.40/1997 (FIR No.316/1996) for the offence under Section 306 IPC was registered against her, for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 01.05.2000 passed (Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:50:18 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-6163/2021] by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh.
3. The petitioner was, therefore, placed under suspension by the respondents vide order dated 01.06.2000 and was served with a charge-sheet vide memorandum of charges dated 01.06.2000. Memorandum of charges contained two charges, which revolved around her conviction in the above criminal case.
4. It is not in dispute that after serving of the charge-sheet, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was kept in abeyance and nothing was done till recently.
5. However, suddenly the respondent - District Education Officer has dismissed the petitioner from service, while invoking Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958 on 18.03.2021, that too without any notice to her.
6. While pointing out that in the appeal preferred against the order of conviction dated 01.05.2000, the sentence of the petitioner had been suspended, Mr. Abhinav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that as petitioner's sentence is not operating, the respondents are not justified in dismissing her services.
7. It was also argued that in the present case, as the initiation of inquiry has been kept in abeyance, obviously on account of petitioner's sentence having been suspended, the respondents cannot resort to provisions of Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India to dismiss the petitioner from her services.
8. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Jain that Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958 or Article 311 of the Constitution of India can be (Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:50:18 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-6163/2021] invoked only when the respondents are of the view that it is not practicable to conduct/hold enquiry against the petitioner, whereas in the present case, the respondents themselves having initiated the enquiry cannot take this excuse to exercise powers under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958. He relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 WLC (UC) 733 to buttress his argument.
9. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection of availability of alternative remedy and submitted that the petitioner should file an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and this Court should refrain from exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. It was also argued by Mr. Choudhary that the petitioner's appeal against her conviction is pending and in case her conviction is set aside, naturally the order dated 18.03.2021, dismissing the petitioner from her service, would be appropriately reviewed/recalled and the petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits.
11. In support of his contention that the respondents can invoke Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958, learned counsel cited judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 1995(3) SCC 377 : Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera.
12. Heard.
13. So far as arguments of Mr. Choudhary regarding availability of alternative remedy is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 18.03.2021, dismissing petitioner from (Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:50:18 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-6163/2021] her services takes away her fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. Since, impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner and no disputed facts are involved, this Court is of the view that remedy of appeal in the present case would be inefficacious.
15. It is intriguing to note that despite pendency of departmental enquiry, the respondents have resorted to Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958 to scoop the petitioner out of the employment. In the present factual backdrop, the very exercise of power under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is without jurisdiction and arbitrary. That apart, the respondent No.2 has not recorded any finding, quintessential for taking action under Rule 19 of CCA Rules, 1958 or Article 311 of the Constitution of India - that it is not practicable to hold enquiry. No such finding has been recorded that her conduct disentitles her from continuing in the Government job. The order impugned has been passed solely because of the fact that petitioner had been convicted under Section 306 of IPC.
16. Petitioner has been serving since 1985. She has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC way back in the year 2000. The respondents have not taken resort to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 for good 21 years and all of a sudden, when the petitioner is about to retire they have thrown her out of employment.
17. In light of what has been stated herein above and in light of the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vs. The Tonk Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Tonk & Anr. reported in 2004 (Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:50:18 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-6163/2021] WLC (Raj.) UC 733, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves a detailed hearing.
18. Matter requires consideration.
19. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also.
20. Mr. Hemant Choudhary accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
21. List this case for final hearing in the month of January, 2022.
22. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order impugned dated 18.03.2021(Annex.5) shall remain stayed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 100-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:50:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)