Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Banwari Lal Meena S/O Ramavtar Meena vs Jaipur Viduit Vitran Nigam Limited ... on 19 October, 2023
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023:RJ-JP:31382]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16939/2023
Banwari Lal Meena S/o Ramavtar Meena, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Santa, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Viduit Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing
Director Viduit Bhawan, Jaipur
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Jaiput Viduit Vitran Nigam
Limited, Department Of Personnel, Viduit Bhavan,
Janpath ,jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Kant Rawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Gupta for
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
19/10/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the
record.
2. Petitioner submitted his resignation on 4/14.09.2023 from
the post of Technical Helper II during continuation of his
suspension and pending inquiry, stating inter alia that he intends
to contest the election of Legislative Assembly-2023 in the State
of Rajasthan, but his resignation has not been accepted and the
application for resignation has been rejected by respondents vide
order dated 11.10.2023, assigning the reason that against the
petitioner, criminal cases and disciplinary inquiry are pending.
Hence, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2023 (Ann.8),
petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (2 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
3. Relevant facts of the case, as culled out from the record are
that petitioner was selected by way of regular selection process to
be appointed on the post of Technical Helper II in the Jaipur Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter for short "JVVNL") vide order
dated 4th September 2008 and in pursuance thereof, he joined on
the post w.e.f. 12.09.2008; When petitioner was posted as
Technical Helper II at the Office of A.En. (HTM), Jaipur Discom,
Mahua, he was put under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) in the
Office of A.En. (O&M) Jaipur Discom, Bandikui City vide order
dated 18.08.2020 (Ann.1) and later on, during APO, he was
placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated
29.09.2020 (Ann.2). Thereafter, the memorandum of charge sheet
dated 16.10.2020, inflicting two charges against the petitioner
was served upon him. Following two charges were levelled:-
(i) First charge against the petitioner, is to the effect that during
his posting as Technical Helper II at the Office of A.En. (HTM),
Jaipur Discom, Mahua on 18.08.2020, he actively participated in
agitation/protest against District Administration at District
Collectorate, Dausa, due to which one FIR No.354/2020 dated
19.08.2020 was registered against him for offences U/s 143, 188
and 269 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station, Dausa.
(ii) Second charge against the petitioner is that during period of
APO in the Office of A.En. (O&M), Jaipur Discom, Bandikui, on
24.09.2020, he actively participated in the movement demanding
reservation in teachers' recruitment and addressed the gathering
at Kankri-Doongiri, Khairwara, District Dungarpur.
4. Inquiry Officer was appointed and departmental inquiry was
ordered to be initiated for such charges. Petitioner participated in
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (3 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
the departmental inquiry and the inquiry Officer concluded the
inquiry on 30.05.2022. The inquiry report dated 30.05.2022 was
served upon the petitioner along with letter dated 07.06.2022
(Ann.5), giving an opportunity to him to submit his
explanation/representation against the inquiry report, to be
considered by the disciplinary Authority before passing any final
order in the matter. Petitioner submitted his representation within
the stipulated time, but no final order by the disciplinary authority
has been passed as yet.
5. It appears that the inquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated
30.05.2022, which is available on record, has found that both the
charges against the petitioner stand proved. During course of
inquiry, it has come on record that one FIR No.354/2020 was
lodged against the petitioner at District Dausa on 19.08.2020 and
other three FIR Nos. 278/2020, 293/2020 & 294/2020, were
registered at Police Stations in District Dungarpur, for offences
under the provisions of IPC, PDP Act, National Highway Act and
Disaster Management Act. Name of petitioner was also alleged to
be involved in one more FIR No.197/2020 registered at Police
Station Sadar, Dungarpur. Thus, petitioner was implicated in total
five FIRs. The inquiry officer observed in the inquiry report that
the involvement of petitioner in the criminal cases, acts under the
above referred five FIRs, is subject matter of investigation and
inquiry by the Police. However, as far as departmental inquiry is
concerned, as per the evidence produced in the inquiry, both the
charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. It was held
that the involvement of petitioner in the agitations/protest against
the Government, falls within the purview of misconduct under
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (4 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
Clause 21(a),(h) & (w) of Technical Workmen Service Regulations
1975 (hereinafter for short "the Regulations of 1975"). The inquiry
Officer, in his report dated 30.05.2022 has concluded that as per
departmental inquiry, both the charges against the petitioner
stand proved.
6. After submission of inquiry report dated 30.05.2022, when
the disciplinary authority did not pass any final decision for more
than a year and in the meantime, the Legislative Assembly
Election-2023 in the State of Rajasthan was declared to be
scheduled in the month of November 2023 and for which
nomination forms are tentatively scheduled w.e.f. 30 th October
2023, as orally stated by learned counsel for petitioner, therefore,
at this stage, petitioner, who is desirous to contest the Legislative
Election, tendered his resignation before the respondents on
4/14.09.2023 (Ann.6). It has been submitted in the application for
resignation that there is no case of financial misappropriation or
any financial recovery pending against the petitioner and the
inquiry report pursuant to the charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 has
already been submitted, therefore, the charge sheet be disposed
of finally forthwith and the resignation of petitioner be accepted.
After submitting application of resignation, petitioner also
submitted another application dated 10.10.2023, to pursue his
application for resignation and for issuance of No Objection
Certification (NOC) to the petitioner, so that he may submit his
nomination form to contest the Legislative Assembly Election-
2023.
7. It appears that respondents constituted a Committee of
three members comprising Secretary (Administration), Additional
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (5 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
S.P (Vigilance), Zonal C.E. (JZ) and S.E. (Legal), Jaipur Discom,
Jaipur, as stated by respondents in their reply to the writ petition
and the Committee submitted report dated 06.10.2023, denying
to revoke suspension of petitioner as also denied to accept his
resignation, because of pending departmental inquiry and criminal
cases against the petitioner. Hence, following the
recommendations of the Committee, the respondents have
rejected the prayer of petitioner to accept the resignation and to
issue NOC vide order/letter dated 11.10.2023 (Ann.8), which has
been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The
report of the Committee dated 06.10.2023 has not been placed on
record by respondents.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the charges
levelled against petitioner by way of memorandum of charge sheet
dated 16.10.2020, do not pertain to financial misappropriation by
the petitioner in the Department, and are in the nature of his
active participation in the agitation/protest against the
Government, while in service at JVVNL and his such acts and
omissions, have been treated as constituting misconduct under
Clause 21(a),(h) & (w) of the Regulations of 1975. The
disciplinary action for misconduct is envisaged in Clause 22 of the
Regulations of 1975, wherein maximum punishment is provided
for dismissal/discharge the delinquent employee/workman from
service without compensation, though other nature of lesser
penalties are also provided therein. He submits that since the
disciplinary authority has not passed any final order against the
petitioner, despite submission of the inquiry report dated
30.05.2022 and after expiry of more than a year, therefore,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (6 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
petitioner has tendered his resignation on 4/14.09.2023. He
submits that petitioner does not claim any compensation or any
service benefits, except his gratuity amount, as such even if the
inquiry report is accepted as it is, and disciplinary action against
the petitioner for the alleged misconduct is taken, at the most
petitioner can be punished with the maximum punishment of his
dismissal from service without compensation. Yet any fine or other
penalties is also imposed, petitioner would submit an undertaking
to deposit the same. As far as pending FIRs are concerned, none
of the FIR is lodged by and on the behest of respondent
Department, so the Department has no nexus with such FIRs,
keeping the departmental inquiry pending and to deny his
resignation, is totally arbitrary and malicious action of
respondents. It was incumbent for the respondents, either to pass
final order in respect of charge sheet against the petitioner or to
accept his resignation, but passing the order impugned dated
11.10.2023 is wholly arbitrary and perverse act on the part of
respondents, due to which legal right of petitioner to contest in
the Legislative Assembly Election-2023 would be frustrated. Thus,
the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is whimsical and violative
to the legal rights of the petitioner, as much as leads to failure of
justice.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also argued that in the
Regulations of 1975, there is no specific provision in respect of
dealing the application for resignation, if submitted by the
workman, and the issue of resigning by the petitioner may be
considered in the light of terms of his Bond. At the time of joining
of the petitioner in JVVNL pursuant to his appointment order dated
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (7 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
4th September 2008, a written Bond was got executed by the
respondents in favour of JVVNL on 11.09.2008 and according to
terms of the Bond, in case petitioner would resign or leave the
service of JVVNL after completion of three years' period, without
giving three months' notice in writing, he shall be liable to pay the
amount of salary for the notice period falling short of three
months as compensation to the JVVNL. Thus, he submits that in
view of such an agreed condition, the resignation of petitioner
deserves to be accepted, subject to deposition of three months'
salary by the petitioner, for which petitioner is ready.
10. To buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner
has placed reliance on a decision of the Government dated 31 st March 1961 as also on the order dated 13 th October 2022 passed in Writ Petition (L) No.32602/2022: Rutuja Ramesh Latke Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. by the High Court of Bombay, to submit that by declining to accept resignation, respondents cannot be allowed to frustrate legal right of the petitioner, to contest the Legislative Assembly Election-2023 and resignation can be accepted during suspension and pending disciplinary inquiry, if acceptance of resignation is cheaper to the public exchequer than to proceed for departmental inquiry.
11. Per contra, from the side of respondents, the prayer of petitioner has been opposed and it has been contended in the reply to the writ petition, that as per the report of SP, Dungarpur, in FIR Nos.278/2020, 293/2020 and 294/2020 registered against the petitioner at Police Stations District Dungarpur, after investigation, Challan were filed before the Court, but these cases were returned by the Court with objection for further (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (8 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] investigation. Since the clear position about such criminal cases has not been informed by the Police Authorities to the JVVNL, therefore, in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to conclude the charge sheet against the petitioner. The factum of completing the departmental inquiry by the inquiry Officer and submission of the inquiry report dated 30.05.2022, has not been disputed. According to respondents, the charges levelled against petitioner in the pending criminal cases, are heinous in nature, hence the Committee was constituted, comprising Secretary (Administration), Additional S.P (Vigilance), Zonal C.E. (JZ) and S.E. (Legal), Jaipur Discom, Jaipur and as per report of the Committee dated 06.10.2023, the decision has been taken, not to issue NOC or to accept the resignation of petitioner from the Department, allowing him to contest the election of Legislative Assembly and the decision has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter/order dated 11.10.2023. Thus, supporting the order dated 11.10.2023, respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
12. Heard. Considered.
13. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the JVVNL vide order dated 04 th September 2008 on the post of Technical Helper II and the service conditions of petitioner are governed under the Regulations of 1975. In the Regulations of 1975, no provision has been said to be incorporated to deal the issue of acceptance/denial of the resignation, if submitted by an employee/workman. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner has shown a copy of appointment order dated 4th September 2008 as also a copy of Bond dated (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (9 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] 11.09.2008 executed by petitioner in favour of JVVNL, in terms of the appointment order. Conditions No.4 & 5 as enumerated in the appointment order and Clause 5 of the Bond, talk about the issue in respect of resign/leaving the services by the workman/employee. The order of appointment and Bond, both the documents are undisputed, rather admitted documents, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, copies of these documents are taken on record.
14. As per term & condition Nos.4 & 5, enumerated in the appointment order dated 4th September 2008, petitioner was required to submit a Bond on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- in favour of JVVNL at the time of joining his duties. Admittedly, petitioner executed the Bond in compliance thereof and terms and conditions incorporated in the Bond are the agreed terms between parties. As per terms of the Bond, petitioner undertook not to leave his training/service or resign there from, during the period of two years of probation training as well as even one year after completion of probation training and in case he violates his undertaking, will be liable to refund all emoluments to JVVNL, paid to him, including the expenses incurred by the JVVNL in any training, subject to maximum of Rs.1,50,000/- only. After completion of three years' period of service, if petitioner would resign or leave service of JVVNL, without giving three months notice in writing, he shall be liable to pay the amount of salary for the notice period falling short of three months as compensation to the JVVNL and in case of any default, the amount may be deducted from any amount, payable to the petitioner. For ready reference Clause/Condition No.5 of the Bond, which is in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (10 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] conformity to the condition as enumerated in the appointment order, is being reproduced hereunder:-
"5. In case, after completion of 3 years' period and also during any period otherwise not covered by para 1,2 & 3 above, I resign or leave service of JVVNL without giving three months notice in writing to the Chairman & Managing Director, I bind myself to pay the amount of salary for the notice period falling short of 3 months' as compensation to the JVVNL and in case of any default the amount may be deducted from any money due to me."
Only difference is that in the term and condition No.5 enumerated in the appointment order, the notice period is of one month, whereas in the Bond, notice period is of three months.
15. By the aforesaid agreed term and condition, it transpires that the petitioner may resign or leave the service of JVVNL after making compliance of such terms. Indisputably, petitioner has joined service in the JVVNL on 12.09.2008 pursuant to the appointment order dated 04th September 2008 and he submitted application to resign on 04/14.09.2023, it means after completion of period as probationer trainee and expiry of his service period for more than 3 years. As per Condition No.5, petitioner was required to serve three months' notice in writing, before praying to resign/leave the service, and in lieu thereof, to deposit salary of three months as compensation to the JVVNL. Counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit the salary of three months in lieu of notice, thus, if petitioner deposits the salary of three months and any other dues, if payable by the petitioner as demanded by the JVVNL, his resignation deserves to be accepted, as per the agreed terms and conditions between parties.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (11 of 19) [CW-16939/2023]
16. However, in the present case, the resignation of petitioner has been declined to be accepted by respondents vide order dated 11.10.2023, assigning reasons of continuous suspension of petitioner and pending disciplinary inquiry as also criminal cases against him. As far as suspension is concerned, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.09.2020 (Ann.2) and thereafter, he was served with memorandum of charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 (Ann.3). Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet, but the same was not dropped and an inquiry Officer namely Mr. N.P. Sharma was appointed, who initiated the inquiry in respect of both the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. The inquiry Officer has completed the inquiry and submitted inquiry report dated 30.05.2022. As per the inquiry report and conclusion of the inquiry Officer, both the charges against the petitioner levelled in respect of his misconduct for his active participation in the agitations/protest against the Government, on 18.08.2020 (during his posting as Technical Helper II at the Office of A.En. Jaipur Discom, Mahua) and on 24.09.2020 (during APO under A.En. Jaipur Discom, Bandikui City), have been found proved. The charge sheet to petitioner was issued, treating his acts to participate in the agitations/protest against the Government during in service with JVVNL as a misconduct in view of the Clause 21(a), (h) & (w) of the Regulations of 1975.
17. According to the Regulations of 1975, disciplinary action for misconduct of a workman is envisaged under Clause 22. Sub Clauses (3) and 4(c) of Clause 22, are relevant to the case of petitioner, which read as under:-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31382] (12 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] "(3) Any workman found guilty of any misconduct enumerated above in Regulation-21 is liable to be dismissed without notice or compensation in lieu thereof or discharged from service or reduced to a lower cadre or post or his increment or promotion may be withheld or he may be censured provided that no such order shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the misconduct alleged against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges of misconduct against him and where it is proposed after enquiry to dismiss him or reduce to a lower cadre or post until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry."
4(c) If on the conclusion of the enquiry, or as the case may be of the criminal proceedings the workman has been found guilty of the charges framed against him and it is considered after giving the workman concerned a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed that an order of dismissal or suspension or fine or stoppage of annual increment or reduction in rank or with- holding promotion or censure would meet the ends of justice, the employer shall pass an order accordingly."
18. The disciplinary action against the petitioner for the charges levelled and proved against him as per the conclusion of the inquiry report dated 30.05.2022, has not been taken as yet. It is within the domain of disciplinary authority, as to what kind of punishments as envisaged under Clause 22, including Sub Clauses (3) and 4(c) as referred hereinabove, are to be inflicted upon the petitioner. In case, petitioner is punished with the major penalty of dismissal from service without compensation or in addition any fine is also imposed, the question to resign from service by the petitioner does not arise. But since no order by the disciplinary authority, despite submission of the inquiry report dated 30.05.2022 and even after expiry of more than a year, has been passed so far. Due to not conclusion of the charge sheet, the suspension of petitioner has also been continued. Hon'ble the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (13 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 291] has categorically held that suspension of a delinquent employee must be for a shortest period and be not more than three months without assigning reasons, barring exceptional and special circumstances. In case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi [2015 (16) SCC 415], Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that it is duty of the employer to ensure the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee to conclude with shortest possible time by taking priority measures as far as possible within six months, which may further be extended for one year in certain circumstances, more so when the delinquent is under suspension. Therefore, in the present case, the action of respondents not passing any final order in respect of the charge sheet against the petitioner dated 16.10.2020, despite completing the inquiry thereupon and submission of inquiry report dated 30.05.2022, itself is arbitrary. The continuation of suspension of the petitioner since 29.09.2020 due to pending inquiry, is also not liable to be countenanced. The respondents have not placed on the record the report of the Committee dated 06.10.2023, declining to revoke the suspension of petitioner.
19. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile, in the State of Rajasthan, Legislative Assembly Election-2023 was declared to be conducted in the month of November 2023 and petitioner is desirous to contest the election. Every citizen of India, subject to his/her eligibility, has a right to contest/participate in the election. The eligibility of petitioner to contest Assembly Election, is to be judged by the Election Officer and not by respondents. It is also to (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (14 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] be considered by the Election Officer, the effect of pending criminal cases against the petitioner, looking to nature of offences, for allowing to contest the petitioner in the Assembly Election. As per Clause 21-B of the Regulations of 1975, petitioner cannot contest the legislative election, during continue in service before the JVVNL. The relevant portion i.e. Sub Clause (1) of the Clause 21-B reads as under:-
"(1) No workman shall be a member of or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of or assist in any other manner, in any political movement or activity."
20. In such circumstances, petitioner submitted his resignation from service of JVVNL on 4/14.09.2023 before the Managing Director, JVVNL, Jaipur. It was incumbent for the respondents, either to pass final order on the charge sheet dated 16.10.2020, more so when inquiry has completed and inquiry report dated 30.05.2022 against the petitioner has been submitted or to consider the resignation of petitioner, within the scope of the term and condition No.5 as enumerated in the appointment order and Bond, which is an agreed condition. No appropriate and sufficient explanation has been given by respondents, for not passing the final order even after conclusion of the inquiry on the charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 against the petitioner, nor the agreed condition No.5 has been taken into consideration. Petitioner is ready to submit undertaking to abide by the punishment of dismissal from service and not to claim any compensation or other benefits except to get his due gratuity amount, as also to pay the amount (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (15 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] of fine or penalties or dues, if imposed or found outstanding against him in the Department.
21. Respondents in the reply of writ petition have contended that in respect of FIR Nos.278/2020, 293/2020 and 294/2020, after investigation, the Police Authorities submitted Challan before the Court, but the Court returned the Challan with certain objection and clear position about such criminal cases has not been informed by the Police Authorities to the JVVNL, therefore, in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to conclude the case of petitioner at this stage. Reasons assigned by respondents, for not passing final order on the charge sheet against the petitioner, is not liable to be countenanced. Firstly, the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner are required to be considered by the disciplinary authority in the light of Clause 21(a), (h) & (w) of the Regulations of 1975, as to whether the active participation of petitioner during his service with JVVNL in the agitations/protest against the Government, constituting the misconduct and if yes, as observed by the inquiry Officer in the inquiry report dated 30.05.2022, then what kind of punishment is to be inflicted upon the petitioner. Secondly, the Circular of the Government of Rajasthan dated 30.08.2017 too does not support the action of respondents, not to conclude the departmental inquiry, merely on account of pending criminal cases, for a long period. Thirdly, the inquiry Officer in his report dated 30.05.2022 has observed that the criminal cases against the petitioner arising out of five FIRs, are subject matter of Police investigation and the Court. None of the criminal case, has lodged by and on the behest of the respondent Department. Thus, the respondent Department is (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (16 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] required to pass final order against the petitioner on the basis of evidence, came on record during course of departmental inquiry on the charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 against the petitioner, forthwith.
22. As far as criminal cases are concerned, in respect of FIR No. 354/2020, allegedly registered against the petitioner on 19.08.2020, at District Dausa, petitioner has submitted that the said criminal case has been closed as withdrawn in the National Lok Adalat on 14.05.2022 and this fact has also been admitted by respondents in the reply. As far as three FIR Nos. 278/2020, 293/2020 and 294/2020, registered at Police Stations, Dungarpur, are concerned, taking into consideration the nature of offences levelled against the petitioner, the Election Officer may adjudge the eligibility of petitioner to contest the election and same is the position in respect of FIR No.197/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar, Dungarpur, if pending against the petitioner.
23. On facts of the present case, petitioner has mentioned reason of having desirous to contest the Legislative Assembly Election 2023, in his application for resign dated 04/14.09.2023. The petitioner also prayed to pass final order in respect of pending disciplinary inquiry against him. In such peculiar circumstances, where petitioner expressed desire to contest the Assembly Election, the case of petitioner for passing final order on the pending inquiry against him, should have been taken up expeditiously and more so when respondents declined to accept the resignation of petitioner, due to the pending departmental inquiry. Respondents, instead of pondering over the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (17 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] charge sheet, emphasized on the nature of criminal cases wherein petitioner was implicated. Respondents did not consider the decision of the Government dated 31.03.1961 (placed on record by respondents as Annexure R/1), which permits to accept the resignation of delinquent employee even during his suspension and pending departmental inquiry, where it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation, instead of protecting the departmental proceedings. The agreed condition No.5 as enumerated in the appointment order and Bond furnished by petitioner, was also not taken into consideration.
24. Thus, on consideration of the whole conspectus of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 may not be said to be passed in proper exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, neither lawfully nor judiciously, rather the order leads to failure of justice. The action of respondents neither deciding the pending departmental inquiry against the petitioner finally, nor accepting the resignation of petitioner, leads to violation of legal and fundamental rights of petitioner for expeditious conclusion of the departmental inquiry, more so when petitioner is under suspension as well as the same leads to violation of the legal right of petitioner, to contest the Assembly Election. The order passed by the High Court of Bombay on 13 th October 2022 in case of Rutuja Ramesh Latke (Supra), though interim in nature, yet supports the case of petitioner to protect his right to contest the Assembly Election. Otherwise also, the right of petitioner to contest/participate in the election is a legal right, subject to the eligibility of the petitioner under law. Thus, the action of respondents, not to pass the final order against the petitioner, in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (18 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] respect of charge sheet, merely due to pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, may not be held to be just and proper and is not liable to be countenanced. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that respondents are required to pass final order in respect of charge sheet dated 16.10.2020, on which the departmental inquiry has been concluded on 30.05.2022, within a period of 3 days and thereafter, as per final order, the application submitted by petitioner for resignation deserves to be considered afresh, in the light of agreed term and condition No.5 of the appointment order and Bond. It is noteworthy here that petitioner is ready to pay/deposit the salary of three months as also to pay fine/penalty or any other dues/financial liabilities, if payable by petitioner to the JVVNL. Petitioner is ready to submit undertaking, if any fine/penalty is imposed on conclusion of the investigation of criminal cases.
25. As a final result, the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to take a final decision within a period of 3 days, in respect of charge sheet dated 16.10.2020, on which the inquiry report has already been submitted on 30.05.2022. Needless to observe that after passing of the final order on the charge sheet by the disciplinary authority, the suspension of petitioner pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2020 would automatically come to an end. In case, petitioner is allowed to continue in service, respondents are directed to consider the application of resignation submitted by petitioner dated 4/14.09.2023 (Ann.6) afresh within a period of three days thereafter, but on or before 30 th October 2023, in the light of term and condition No.5 as enumerated in the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31382] (19 of 19) [CW-16939/2023] appointment order of petitioner as also in the Bond, executed by petitioner in favour of JVVNL, which is one of the agreed term and condition and as observed in preceding paragraph No.24. It is also hereby observed that if any dues or penalty is found due against the petitioner, petitioner would pay the same to the Department forthwith, as agreed by the counsel for petitioner.
26. It is made clear that the eligibility of petitioner to contest the Legislative Assembly Election-2023 shall be adjudged by the Election Officer, as per the applicable norms and respondents have no concerned with that aspect, except to decide the pending matter on the charge sheet or the issue of resignation of petitioner, as the case may be, within the stipulated time as directed hereinabove, for the reasons stated hereinabove.
27. With aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
28. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/272 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:57:03 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)