Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Singh Solanki vs Raj State Sport Council Jaipur on 2 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4194 / 1998
Rajendra Singh Solanki Son of Shri Mohan Singh Ji Solanki, Aged
About 44 Years, B-70, Pragati Path, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Sports Council Through Its Chairman, S.M.S.
Stadium, Jaipur
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment 02/03/2017 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition wherein he has pointed out that he was appointed as Athletic Coach Grade-III on 28.01.1980 and was promoted to the post of Coach Grade-II on 22.02.1990. It is submitted that he was due to be promoted on the post of Coach Grade-I when a charge sheet was served on him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, 'the CCA Rules of 1958') vide memorandum dt. 20.11.1996, wherein allegations levelled against him were with regard to remaining on leave without permission as well as with regard to participating in elections without seeking prior permission. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and submitted his reply on 10.03.1997 and contested the allegations before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry (2 of 4) [CW-4194/1998] Officer submitted its enquiry report on 21.07.1997. Copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner who was asked to submit his representation thereafter. After examining his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 29.07.1998, whereby the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after taking into consideration the delinquency of the petitioner as well as the period of service which he had rendered with the department, passed an order of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension. The Disciplinary Authority noticed that while on one side the concerned delinquent petitioner had written applications for seeking leave and also submitted certificates showing him unwell, at the same time during the said intervening period, he also participated in the election and thus, the charges were amply proved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested and challenged the said orders inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not given due opportunity, however on the specific query put to the learned counsel with regard to two different stands taken by the petitioner himself of having contested election and also having proceeded on sick leave, learned counsel has not been able to answer the same. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in spite of the order of compulsory retirement having been passed in the year 1998, the petitioner has not been paid any pension and retiral benefits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there is no illegality in the impugned order. A fair opportunity was given to the petitioner and he was allowed to (3 of 4) [CW-4194/1998] participate in the enquiry proceedings at each stage. The provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 have been followed and copy of the enquiry report was made available to him. The representation of the petitioner has also been examined by Disciplinary Authority and after taking into consideration all the aspects, the Disciplinary Authority has even examined the proportionate punishment which should be awarded.
Keeping in view the relevant service rendered by petitioner, the order does not warrant any interference by this court.
As regards the non-payment of pension is concerned it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the order impugned was stayed by this Court and therefore it was not possible for the respondent to release the pension. However on disposal of the present petition, the pension and retiral benefits shall be released. It is also submitted that although the said order was passed by this Court, the petitioner did not join back on duty and thus has considered himself to have retired.
This Court reflected over the submissions Apparently so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, no fault can be attributed to the proceedings and the order passed by Disciplinary Authority does not warrant any interference. The petitioner has been allowed to participate in the departmentally proceedings and the provision of Rule 16 CCA Rules have been followed and fair opportunity has been given to object to the enquiry report, however it is apparent that the delinquency is fairly made out from the facts which have been quoted above. The punishment commensurate with the delinquency which the (4 of 4) [CW-4194/1998] petitioner has committed and on that count too, no interference is called for.
So far as the interim order is passed by this court is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court that perhaps the interim order was not brought to the knowledge of the respondents and it has escaped notice for so many years and therefore, it was reasonable so far as the respondent is concerned not to release pension and pensionary amount. While upholding the order of punishment, it is now directed that the respondent shall release the entire pension, post retiral benefits and gratuity to the petitioner within 3 months from today.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed with regard to the impugned order. Further directions and observations be complied with by the respondents. No costs.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. M.Meena/87