Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemendra Kumar Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 March, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6261 / 2017
Hemendra Kumar Trivedi Son of Late Sh. Champa Lal Trivedi, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o H.No. 42A, 9th E Road Sardarpura Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Forest Department
Govt. of Raj. Jaipur.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan Jaipur.
3. Chief Conservator of Forest, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal.
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Shekhar Mewara.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 13/03/2018 An application has been filed by one Jai Singh Parihar - applicant seeking impleadment as party respondent to the present writ petition.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 19.5.2017, whereby, the petitioner has been placed under Awaiting Posting Orders ('APO'). It is, inter alia, indicated by the applicant that he has filed several complaints against the petitioner and departmental inquiries under Rule 16 and 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, ('the Rules of 1958') have been conducted / are pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the applicant is a necessary party.
(2 of 4) [CW-6261/2017] Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the application and submits that the said applicant has no locus standi in the present case.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the presence of the applicant-complainant is not necessary in the present litigation. In view thereof, the application is rejected.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.2017 (Annex.7), whereby, the petitioner has been placed Awaiting Posting Orders and his Headquarter has been fixed at the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali.
The petitioner was working at the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest Jodhpur as Ranger Grade II, Range Mandore Jodhpur. It is claimed that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.6.2018. It is also claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner was not issued any charge-sheet till passing of the order dated 23.9.2016, whereby, the petitioner was sought to be transferred from his present place of posting to Sirohi. It is claimed that as the said order was made on account of complaints, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11114/2016, wherein, interim order was granted by the Court and ultimately by order dated 3.2.2017, the order was set aside.
Whereafter, by order dated 8.3.2017, the petitioner was posted at the office of Regional Forest Officer, Forest Protection, which order was also questioned by the petitioner by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3566/2017, which order was stayed by order dated 28.3.2017. Whereafter, by order dated 18.5.2017, earlier (3 of 4) [CW-6261/2017] order dated 6.3.2017 was withdrawn by the respondents and on the very next day i.e. 19.5.2017, the petitioner was placed APO and his Headquarter was fixed at Pali.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise on part of the respondent is to somehow displace the petitioner from the present place of posting, the petitioner repeatedly questioned the validity of action taken by the respondents, whereby, either the order passed has been set aside or the same has been stayed and to overcome the said situation, the order impugned has been passed and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State, inter alia, indicating that the petitioner was punished under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and further charge-sheets are pending and only with a view to ensure that the inquiries pending against the petitioner are not affected, he has been placed APO and posted at Pali and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the order dated 19.5.2017 (Annex.7) indicates that the order is non-speaking, no reason whatsoever has been indicated as to why the petitioner was being placed APO. The repeated orders passed against the petitioner, have been interfered with by this Court on account of their obvious deficiency and again in the present case, the order has been passed in apparent violation of Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. The submissions made in the reply seeking to justify the (4 of 4) [CW-6261/2017] order dated 19.5.2017, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the respondents cannot use the provisions of Rule 25-A of RSR for extraneous purposes without indicating reasons for the same in the order. If the order dated 19.5.2017 (Annex.7) was issued for the reasons as indicated in the reply, the same should have been reflected in the order and, therefore, the reasons indicated in the reply cannot be used for sustaining the order impugned.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 19.5.2017 (Annex.7) is quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. sumit-38