Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravi Shekhar Purohit vs State & Ors on 13 January, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
1 [4141CW2009]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4141 / 2009
Ravi Shekhar Purohit S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Purohit aged
about 44 years, presently posted as the Assistant Engineer
(Civil) Public Works Department, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_______________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parmendra Bohra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
_______________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 13/01/2017 The petitioner preferred this writ petition by making following prayers:-
"(a) the impugned orders Annex.5 dated 23.01.2002, Annex.8 dated 1-4-2003 and Annex.10 dated 17-1-2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authoriyt, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively, may kindly be quashed set aside, as if the same were never passed.
(b) The petitioner may kindly be exonerated from the charge by 2 [4141CW2009] quashing the charge sheet dated 18- 30200 (Annex.1)
2. The facts noticed by this Court in the petition are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer and was posted in PWD Sub-Division II, Pali from 07.09.1994 to 15.07.1995. A charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1958') was served upon the petitioner on 18.03.2000.
3. The allegation in the charge sheet was that because of the inaction and non-appearance of the petitioner in one case i.e. Case No.66/92 before the Labour Court, Jodhpur, was decided ex-parte against the Department vide order dated 11.12.1995 and in favour of the workman Dhala Ram thus causing a loss of Rs.16,060/- to the State Government.
4. The petitioner filed a detailed reply stating therein that before he joined at the place of his posting on 08.09.1994, the case had already come up on the following dates i.e. 07.09.1992, 09.11.1992, 11.02.1993, 05.05.1993, 23.06.1993, 01.12.1993, 20.01.1994, 27.01.994, 23.03.1994, 25.05.1994 and on 24.08.1994.
5. The petitioner categorically took stand that the case was going on in the Labour Court, Jodhpur for last two years without any contest. Even the appointment of the Govt. Counsel to represent the case was also not initiated. The learned Labour Court, Jodhpur had noted on 3 [4141CW2009] 24.08.1992 that it shall be the last opportunity upon the respondent to file a reply.
6. The petitioner further averred that at the time of handing over the charge to him, the then incumbent of the post Shri S.S. Mathur did not leave any note regarding position of the important points/works including the Court case as required in Para 10.7 of the PWD Manual, under Chapter X and the petitioner was completely in dark about the position of the case. The petitioner through out his tenure did not receive any information whatsoever from the Court or the staff or the Department regarding the ongoing case and, therefore, the petitioner neither had knowledge to defend the case, nor he made any efforts to contest the case. It is also averred by the petitioner that after the charge was handed over again to Shri S.S.Mathur, the case was listed for hearing on 24.08.1995, 16.11.1995 and 11.12.1995. He neither got the Government Counsel appointed nor made any other efforts to stay the proceedings. The petitioner's stand was consistent in all these replies filed by him.
7. The respondents, however, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed the penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 23.01.2002.
8. The petitioner preferred the appeal in which order was passed on 01.04.2003 so as to maintain the original order dated 23.01.2002. Both the orders were again maintained 4 [4141CW2009] in review order passed on 17.01.2005. The petitioner preferred this writ petition against these orders.
9. The respondent filed a reply to the writ petition and stated that it was the duty of the petitioner to look after the cases pending in the Court and hence he had committed lapse in performing said duty, therefore, the punishment was rightly imposed upon the petitioner.
10. Counsel for the respondent also argued that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority are perfectly legal and valid orders passed after proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the same do not call for any interference by this Court.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and have perused the record available.
12. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the the parties this Court is of the opinion that on the face of it, the responsibility of contesting the case was deviated at the time of initiation of the case itself. This fact is not disputed by the respondent that prior to the petitioner, taking the charge of the office concerned, the matter was already listed about ten times and also it is not disputed that the matter was listed after the petitioner demitted the said office at least three times. The respondents have not punished the officer responsible for not contesting the case before the Labour Court, Jodhpur as on about ten occasions prior to the petitioner assuming 5 [4141CW2009] charge and about on three occasions after the petitioner demitting the said office. The consistent stand of the petitioner has been that he was never informed in writing or oral or through any official document during his tenure regarding status of the case by the officer incharge to contest the case in question.
13. In normal course this Court would not like to interfere in any orders passed by the authority under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 but in this case, on the face of it, the petitioner admittedly is not responsible for all the crucial dates of the case. The case in Labour Court, Jodhpur was continued since last about ten dates before the petitioner took charge and for three dates after the holding of charge by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for negligence. The petitioner was never communicated about the details of the pending case, therefore, he was not having any kind of information or intimation so as to attend such case.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 23.01.2002 (Annex.5), 01.04.2003 (Annex.8) and 17.01.2005 (Annex.10) are quashed and set aside.
(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. mamta