Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramniwas vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 8 October, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014
1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
:: O R D E R ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas S/o Sh. Chena Ram Bishnoi
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :::: 08th October, 2014.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
Mr. T.S. Rathore on behalf of
Dr. Nupur Bhati, for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Patel, Addl. Govt. Counsel.
Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, for the Gram Panchayat- Shri Balaji
--
BY THE COURT:
1. The petitioner, Ramniwas S/o Sh. Chena Ram Bishnoi, has preferred this writ petition in this Court on 10.01.2013 seeking following relief(s): -
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: -
A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, order dated 26.10.2012 (Annex.4) & 29.10.2012 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed being devoid of authority of law.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014
2/9
B. By an appropriate writ, order or
direction, order dated 1.1.2013 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed to the extent that it places the petitioner at Gram Panchayat Bhomasar from Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji and the respondents may kindly be directed to keep him at Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji in accordance with the order of the Tribunal.
C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
D. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
3. While issuing notices to the respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court vide the order dated 17.01.2013 stayed the effect and operation of the order Annex.6 dated 01.01.2013, whereby the suspension order dated 26.10.2012 (Annex.4) of the petitioner who was working as 'Gram-Sevak' in Gram Panchayat- Shri Balaji, was revoked and a charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner on 29.10.2012, and an explanation was sought from the petitioner while transferring him from Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji to Gram Panchayat Bhomasar, and the petitioner was S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 3/9 asked to hand over the charge as 'Gram-Sevak' of Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji to one Sh. Jassaram Gaur. These Gram Panchayat(s) are within the same Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur.
4. The respondent- Panchayati Raj Department, has filed a reply to the writ petition and contested the writ petition.
5. Today, the matter comes up on application (IA No.4231/14) filed by the applicant, Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji, seeking its impleadment as a party-respondent in the present writ petition since the petitioner failed to implead them as a responent.
6. Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in pursuance of ad-interim order dated 17.01.2013, upon filing of the contempt petition by the petitioner being S.B. Contempt Petition No.41/2013-Ramniwas Vs. C.S. Rajan & Ors., the petitioner was posted back as 'Gram-Sevak' at Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji, the original place of his work and where for certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules of 1958 was initiated against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.S. Rathore, has urged that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti- Nagaur, does not have the jurisdiction to either place the petitioner under suspension or even transfer him from Gram Panchayat Shri Balaji to Gram Panchayat, Bhomasar. He also S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 4/9 drew the attention fo the Court towards the representation given by the petitioner to the Chairman of the District Administrative & Establishment Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur in this regard vide Annex.8 dated 12.11.2012. The said representation has not been decided and, therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner even opposed the application of the applicant, Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji, seeking its impleadment in the present writ petition, though no reply contesting the said application has been filed by the petitioner and copy of the application was given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 18.09.2014.
8. The charge sheet served upon the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 is quoted herein below for ready reference:
"आर प व रण
1. मनरग य जन म खर ननम ण म घट य स मग क
उपय ग करन ए क य र कन पर क य नह रक न
तकम न क व रद मनमज स क य करन ।
2. मखयमत आ स य जन म बन हए मक न( क ऊपर
मक न बन कर र जक*य र श, क दरपय ग।
3. इन0दर आ स य जन म 01 अक ल ब प एल
परर र क ब र ब र ब4ठक( म ननद6 , दन क ब द भ
आ दन त4य र नह करन ज करवय क पनत ल पर ह
ह4 ।
4. इन0दर आ स य जन मखयमत आ स य जन म
समय पर उपय गगत पम ण पत त4य र कर पसतत नह
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014
5/9
करन पर ल भ ग=य( क ट>त य ककसत क भगत न नह
हन।
5. ज0म मत@ य पनजकरण क* म शसक ररप समय पर
पच यत सशमनत म पसतत नह करन ।
6. पच यत सशमनत स ज भ सCचन म ग ज त ह4 ज
समय पर पसतत नह करन त= न ट स क ज ब भ
नह दन ।
इस पक र आप र जय क य क पनत अपन
करवय क पनत उद स नत ल पर ह बरतन क द ष
ह4 ।"
9. The petitioner instead of filing any explanation or reply to the said charge sheet including raising the question of jurisdiction of the said Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, but he preferred this writ petition in this Court on 10.01.2013 and the only representation given was to the Chairman of the District Administrative & Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur.
10. In pursuance of the ad-interim order dated 17.01.2013 and under the threat of contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.41/2013), in which the then Secretary & Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Mr. C.S. Rajan), Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur (Mr. Sangram Ram Tandi) and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur (Mr. Hanuman Prasad Khandelwal) were impleaded as respondents/contemnors, in which notices were issued by a coordinate bench of this Court on 07.02.2013 and S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 6/9 under the threat of said contempt petition, the respondents posted back the petitioner in the same Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji and on the basis of this purported compliance of the interim order, the contempt petition thereafter appears to have been dismissed, as having become infructuous on 18.10.2013.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court cannot appreciate any grounds on the basis of which the said writ petition can even be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all, the petitioner wanted to raise the question of jurisdiction of the Block Development Officer, he could have first raised such objection before the same authority, who passed the impugned order and that authority was expected to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary question. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the same, he could have approached the concerned District Administrative & Establishment Committee, as per the relevant Rules, which could decide the question of his jurisdiction. It is not such a patent lack of jurisdiction of the Block Development Officer, who has initiated an enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and placing him under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry on the aforesaid charges. The result of filing of the present writ petition under the interim order and under the threat of contempt proceedings, the petitioner was posted back at the same place where an enquiry was initiated against him under S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 7/9 Rule 17 of the CCA Rules of 1958 and the charge sheet, quoted above, prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not doing the work properly. It could have been a matter of enquiry and establishing of those charges by the prosecution/department before the Enquiry Officer, but under the garb of the interim order and subsequent contempt petition, which resulted in the dismissal of the contempt petition on the basis of purported compliance by way of posting him back at the same place, has put a premium on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and he has been able to successfully misuse the process of this Court for that purpose.
12. Normally, this Court would not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in disciplinary matters at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet, subverting or stalling the disciplinary action, which could be urgently called for to prevent further loss of revenue to the State and to ensure proper working of staff employed for the execution of various works under the M- NREGA works under the flagship scheme, hugely funded by the Central Government and the State Government. The question of jurisdiction of Block Development Officer, raised before this Court straightway should not have sounded the alarm bells, and this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary action at this stage, could not have been interfered with. The relevant Act and Rules clearly provide for a full and complete mechanism for S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 8/9 redressal to the concerned Government servant, during and even after the enquiry proceedings and further disciplinary action which may or may not result in punishment order against the petitioner, and the concerned Government servant even has the appellate remedy before the competent authority under the said Act and under the CCA Rules of 1958.
13. The petitioner having successfully bypassed all these departmental remedies, has been able to stall, subvert and divert the disciplinary action against him defeating the very purpose of the same and with the lapse of time, the very rigour of such disciplinary action, which is much called for while executing these kinds of works under the M-NAREGA scheme; and the cases of this nature, have even flooded the dockets of the Courts, albeit unnecessarily. The tenor of this writ petition shows that a person at lower level of 'Gram-Sevak' who is but a kingpin in the execution of various works was so much hurt by his transfer to a nearby Gram Panchayat in the same district and under the same Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur that he not only challenged the said order Annex.6 dated 01.01.2013 before this Court by which even his suspension order was revoked and only an enquiry under Rule 17 for imposition of a minor penalty under the Rules of 1958 was initiated and to avoid any prejudice to such enquiry, he might have been transferred to the nearby Gram Panchayat under the same Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur, but S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 494/2013.
Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 08/10/2014 9/9 under the ad-interim order of this Court, he not only ensured his posting back at the same Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji, but even initiated contempt action against the respondents, top to bottom, from Block Development Officer to the Secretary & Commissioner of Panchayati Raj Department. He even failed to implead the necessary and affected Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji, and the learned counsel even opposed the application filed for its impleadment.
14. This Court is at pains to observe this kind of gross misuse of the contempt jurisdiction by the misguided and ill- advised Government servants, who instead of facing the disciplinary action seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the fall of hat, as it were. It deserves to be strongly deprecated, to say the least and such frivolous litigation deserves to be put down with strong iron hands of justice by imposition of exemplary cost on such petitioners.
15. The upshot of above discussion is that the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the Gram Panchayat, Shri Balaji within one month from today. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
38