Om Prakash Parihar vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Ors ... on 30 October, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Om Prakash Parihar vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Ors ... on 30 October, 2025

1. The brief facts giving rise to the petitioner to approach this court are that the petitioner after acquiring the Vocational Training i.e. I.T.I. in Electrical Trade in the year 1988 appointed as Switch Board Attendant-II on daily wages basis vide order dated 30.07.1991 and he was ordered to be posted in the office of Assistant Engineer (TLD / GSS), Gotan. He was discharging his duties diligently and sincerely as claimed.

2. Vide office order dated 25.01.1995 he was appointed as Switch Board Attendant-II in regular pay scale on probation for 2 years. Subsequent to that order yet another order was issued by another authority on 08.02.1995 whereby it was clarified that the (Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 12:40:56 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:49:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46847] (2 of 4) [CW-4650/2011] order dated 27.01.1995 would be effective from 10.01.1995. The documents have been annexed with the writ petition and the same have not been controverted. The petitioner was later transferred from Gotan to Nagaur vide transfer order dated 17.02.1993. As he was a technically trained employee having to his credit two ITI certificate in electrician training, therefore he was expected to perform his duties of Switch Board Attendant-II and maintenance of penal switch etc. Instead thereof he was assigned clerical job under the order dated 05.09.1995 issued by A.En. He was further asked to undertake the job of compilation of bills. At a subsequent stage, in pursuance of the Government of Rajasthan decision, the task which was entrusted to RSEB was distributed among different companies. While discharging his duties under the office of the respondent No.4, the petitioner was served upon a memorandum and charge-sheet dates 20.05.2009 under Regulation 22 (3) of Rajasthan State Authority Board Technical Workers Service Regulation, 1975. The petitioner supplied reply and tendered his explanation and sought for exoneration from the charges. 2.1 It is alleged that the disciplinary authority only observed empty formality of personal hearing and without examining the material objectively and considering the explanation tendered on his behalf, the Secretary Administration AVVNL, Ajmer passed a punishment order dated 13.10.2010 whereby punishment of recovery of Rs.70,471/- were ordered against the petitioner. 2.3 Subsequent averments have been made in the writ petition to the effect that at the time of commencing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a memorandum and charge- sheet of given date was also issued to three other persons namely (Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 12:40:56 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:49:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46847] (3 of 4) [CW-4650/2011] Ramnivas (helper), Jugal Kishor Joshi (helper) and Laxman Singh (ARO). It is stated that charges against the other persons were identical since it was outcome of the audit done at the instance of the respondent department. The petitioner alleges that similarly situated persons have been treated differently and no legitimate explanation has been given to take a discriminatory action against the petitioner and thus he craves for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 being biased, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner also made a prayer to quash and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 4.05.2011.

3. A detailed reply has been furnished on behalf of the respondent department showing the basis of the material which led to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It was pleaded that an audit was done by the competent authority as per which certain irregularities were committed by four employees by giving additional benefits to the counsumers. Four persons were found liable for providing additional benefits to the consumers and therefore, suitable actions were taken against them in accordance with the procedure established under law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through averments made in the writ petition and the annexed material as well as the reply furnished by the respondent department

5. Admittedly the nature of accusation and quality of evidence as well as basis of initiation of proceeding against the petitioner and three others were the same and it is very much apparent rather conspicuous that different standards have been adopted by the respondents in dealing with the cases of different person though situated similiarly without giving or assigning any special (Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 12:40:56 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:49:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46847] (4 of 4) [CW-4650/2011] features. As such the claim of parity and allegation of discrimination are very much blatant. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to show any good cause for treating the petitioner differently despite having the same nature of accusation and application of rule and procedure. Making discrimination among similarly situated persons and taking a different approach is certainly an infringement of fundamental rights of equity and equality before the law and therefore the same cannot be permitted.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order under challenge dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-P-11) passed by Secretary Administration AVVNL, Ajmer whereby punishment of recovery of Rs.70,471/- was ordered against the petitioner as well as the order of Appellate Authority dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure-P-19) deserves to and are hereby quashed and set side.

7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 112-chhavi/-

(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 12:40:56 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:49:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur