Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra Kumar Patel vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 29 May, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013
Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014
1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013
Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1207/2013
Naresh Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1204/2013
Ramesh Chandra Chourmar V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1205/2013
Jayendra Kumar Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1206/2013
Gebee Lal Meghwal V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1211/2013
Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1212/2013
Narpat Singh Chouhan V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Date of Order ::: 29th May, 2014
REPORTABLE
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners.
Ms.R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents.
---
BY THE COURT:
1. It is indeed unfortunate that the enquiry initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of directions of this court itself has been successfully stalled by the petitioner in the present set of writ petitions.
2. 23 petitioners came to this Court by way of batch of writ petitions led by Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
- SBCWP No.475/2012 and batch of 23 writ petitions came to be decided by the coordinate bench of this court on 1.5.2012, a copy of which order has been placed on record as Annex.5.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 2/21
3. The controversy which led to filing of these writ petitions arose because the petitioners' services who were appointed as teachers in the respondent - Education Department of the State Government were sought to be terminated on 3.1.2012 purportedly on the ground that the documents furnished by them at the time of their appointment in the year 1999 were wrong and some interpolations were made in the marks-sheets for which an FIR was filed and the marks were wrongly added for preparing the merit on the basis of which they were offered such appointment and there were mistakes committed in the computation of marks and merit list. The termination orders were challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions which came to be disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 1.5.2012. The relevant part of the order is quoted below for ready reference:
"The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the petitioners came to be selected for appointment as Teacher Gr.III as a consequent to process of selection initiated by the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur in the year 1998. Initially the appointment was given on temporary basis with probation for a term of two years, but that came to be confirmed on the successful completion of the period of probation. A first information report dated 27.7.2004 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 3/21 District Dungarpur by the Chief Executive Officer against several persons employed as Teacher Gr.III, as a consequent to the process of selection referred. It was alleged that while availing appointments some interpolation was made in mark-sheets and other relevant documents and as such appointments were obtained by fraud. Subsequent thereto a writ petition in public interest (DBCivil (PIL) Writ Petition No.3596/2004) was filed before Jaipur Bench of this Court that came to be disposed of on 28.4.2005 in following terms:-
"खण प ठ स व ल (जनह त) र ट य च क खय 3596/2004
28-04-2005
म नन य नय य च पतत श स! क"म !म #
म नन य नय य च पतत श क$.ए . ठ&
श ज$न' प द, अच क सत$ प र.
श अरण !म ,# उप जक2य अच क सत$ जय
-------
व दन अच क प र. तर य5गय उप जक2य
अच क क5 न
" गय तर पत ल9 प उपलब
मग क अन"! लन ककय गय ।
अस>ल$ख क$ अन"! लन $ य पत त 5त ? कक द5ष
वयककयC क$ व रद प रसमक2 दज# क द9 गय ? तर
उन E क ण बत ओ$ न5हट > ज 9 ककय$ गय$ ?।
प र. क2 वयर इ र ट य च क मE क$ ल य ? कक
पततपक गण द द5ष वयककयC क$ व रद क य# 9 मE
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013
Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014
4/21
स!चरलत ब त ज 9 ? । उक पर ससरतयC क5
दवLगत खत$ " य$ म पततपक गण क5 य तनदM ! द$ न
उच त मझत$ ? कक पततपक गण द5ष वयककयC क$
व रद ! घत ! घ क य# 9 अमल मE ल E ग$ औ उ मE
कक पक क2 स!चरलत न 9 ब त ज य$ग तर
पततपक गण द ज5 क य# 9 क2 ज 9 ? उ क2
र पQट द5 म मE नय य लय क$ मक पसतत
" क2
ज $ग ।
उक तनदM ! क$ र य र ट यच क तनसत र त क2
जत ? ।"
An another writ petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No.4974/2004 was filed before this Court by 30 persons who were not selected for appointment though they faced process of selection alongwith the petitioners. In the petition for writ referred above a direction was sought to appoint them on the post of Teacher Gr.III by removing some of the persons against whom allegations were made in first information report filed at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur. The petition for writ bearing No.4974/2004 came to be disposed of on 20.1.2011 with following directions:-
"In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to complete the process against the candidates for whom enquiry has been initiated by the department and comply with the aforesaid directions issued by Division Bench of this Court S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 5/21 within a period of six months from today and after completion of process, if any vacancy becomes vacant, then, the case of the petitioners may be considered strictly in accordance with the rules."
In compliance of the directions aforesaid the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur framed charges against the petitioners and served a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 upon the petitioners Gowardhan Singh, Dilip Singh, Hari Singh in SBCivil Writ Petitions No.498/12, 691/12 and 696/12. On behalf of the remaining petitioners it is stated that though charges were framed against them but the charge sheet was not served, however, they were aware of framing of charges and as such all the petitioners submitted their explanation to the disciplinary authority. All the petitioners denied the charges and claimed for regular disciplinary action. The order impugned dated 3.1.2012 then was passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur terminating the petitioners from service. Suffice to mention here that the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur neither used the term "dismissal" nor "removal", the penalties prescribed under the Rules of 1958 but used the term "termination S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 6/21 from service". The order impugned also mentions about supply of the inquiry report to the petitioners in compliance of the provisions of Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958, however, no such report is available on record.
The submission of counsel for the petitioners while giving challenge to the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 is that as a matter of fact no inquiry at all was conducted by the respondents before terminating them from service. It is stated that no inquiry report as referred in the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 factually exists.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioners availed employment by making fraud and, therefore, necessary inquiry was initiated as per provisions of the Rules of 1958, consequent to which the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 was passed. On repeated asking by the Court learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the inquiry report dated 29.5.2004 was supplied to the petitioners and on basis of that disciplinary action was taken.
The inquiry report dated 29.5.2004 is available on record as Anx.R/4 in SB Civil Writ Petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 7/21 No.767/2012. From perusal of the inquiry report it is apparent that the same was a fact finding inquiry conducted much back in the year 2004 and not as a consequent to the allegations settled against the petitioners. It appears that the respondents instead of conducting regular inquiry in accordance with law by adhering procedure under the Rules of 1958 made an effort to hash-up the entire matter just to make compliance of the directions given by this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.4974/2004 on 20.1.2011. No material is available on record to get satisfy that any inquiry officer ever was appointed by the disciplinary authority and any process of inquiry as per the Rules of 1958 ever taken place. The petitioners have been terminated from service without holding any inquiry stipulated under the Rules of 1958. As such, the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 is apparently bad. The same, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed. The orders impugned dated 3.1.2012 passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall be at S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 8/21 liberty to initiate and proceed with regular disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners as per the provisions of the Rules of 1958. The inquiry so conducted shall be concluded expeditiously as far as possible within a period of six months from today. While holding inquiry the disciplinary authority shall ensure necessary compliance of the procedure given under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioners are directed to report to the disciplinary authority on 25.5.2012 enabling him to proceed against them for disciplinary action.
sd/-
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J."
4. Thus, while directing the reinstatement of petitioners while setting aside the termination order dtd.3.1.2012 passed by the Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dungarpur, the respondents were given liberty to initiate and proceed with the regular disciplinary proceedings against these petitioners as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. This Court directed that the enquiry so directed shall be concluded expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of 6 months from today and while holding enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall ensure necessary compliance with the procedure given under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 9/21 petitioners were directed to report to the Disciplinary Authority on 25.5.2012 enabling him to proceed against them for disciplinary action.
5. The judgment aforesaid was delivered by this court on 1.5.2012 and vide Annex.6 dtd.27.12.2012, the charge-sheet was again served upon the present petitioner Gajendra Kumar Patel and others, who were petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions decided by this court. The charge levelled against the petitioners by the Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education reads as under:
"आ 5प व ण खय - 1
य कक आप श गज$न' क"म पट$ ल पव .ओ छ5ट
प. . बबतछ सजल U ग प" क$ पद प क य# त 5क आप
द पसत"त अपन ?क$ण 9 य ?क$ण 9, ब . ए . क2
अकत सलक ह त !?ककक पम ण पत ह त द$ य ब5न
अक क2 व > ग द गणन प तत
W य श$ण अधय पक
9यत U मE नयनU पतत!त 80.40 5त$ " ए > अततम
कट ऑफ प प क 81.49 $ उच सर न प प ककय । ए
आप तनयक" क $ त" अततम कट ऑफ $ उप 80.40 पतत!त
अक म नत$ " ए तनयक
" 5 गय$। आप द पसत"त ज5नल
य"त न स ट
# 9 क]क$ट पम ण पत ह त सजल सत पम ण पत
प > पतत सत क क पसत"त न 9 ककय ।
इ पक म नय ग# मE असनतम कट-ऑफ 81.49
पतत!त $ नय"न 79.16 पतत!त प प क उक र यत मE प प
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013
Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014
10/21
क न$ $ र यत मE न $ सर न खत$ ?। ए तनय"कक $ त"
पत न 9 त$ ? । अत: अतनयसमत तनय"कक प प क न$ क$
आ 5प $ आ 5वपत ककय$ गए ?।
Sd/-
सजल स!क अच क 9
प . स!. U ग प" "
6. On the very next date on 28.12.2012, the said Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education appointed the Block Education Officer, Sh. Anop Singh Sisodia as Enquiry Officer and Sh. Mani Lal Chhaggad as the Prosecuting Officer while serving the said charge-sheet vide Annex.6 dtd.27.12.2012. The petitioners were given 15 days' time to submit their explanation against the said charge-sheet. The petitioners did not file any reply or explanation to the said charge-sheet, but instead filed the present writ petition in this Court on 4.2.2013 purportedly on the ground that the procedure under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was not followed by the respondent - Dist. Education Officer, while issuing the notices to the respondents in the presence of Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, learned the then Government Counsel, who was directed to accept the notices, the Coordinate bench of this Court stayed further proceedings in pursuance of impugned order serving the charge-sheet on the petitioners on 25.11.2013. The said stay order was confirmed by the another coordinate bench of this Court after hearing both sides learned counsels. Since the writ petition was not admitted, the matter has again come up for admission today.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 11/21
7. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have opposed this writ petition saying that while setting aside the termination of the petitioner vide order dtd.3.1.2012, this court had clearly directed the respondents to expeditiously complete the enquiry in Ramila Roat's case (supra) within a period of six month from today. The learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 12.1.2011 while disposing of the writ petition No.4974/2009
- Kirti Kumar and ors. V/s State of Rajasthan where those petitioners approached this Court with the grievance that if the present petitioners 23 in number who were illegally and irregularly appointed on the basis of wrong computation of marks on the basis of forged marks sheets and had their termination been upheld by this Court, the present petitioners Kirti Kumar etc. would have got a chance to be appointed as teacher in their place. While disposing of the writ petition filed by Kirti Kumar and ors. on 20.1.2011, another coordinate bench of this court reiterated that the enquiry against the present petitioners may be initiated by the Department and expeditiously completed within a period of 6 months from today from that date. The operative portion of the said order dtd.20.1.2011 is quoted below for ready reference :
"In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 12/21 complete the process against the candidates for whom enquiry has been initaited by the department and comply with the aforesaid directions issued by Division Bench of this Court within a period of six months from today and after completion of process, if any vacancy becomes vacant, then, the case of the petitioners may be considered strictly in accordance with the rules.
sd/-
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J."
8. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submited that this Court had only permitted enquiry to be held agaisnt the present petitioners strictly in accordance with the mandatory provisions laid down under the Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, whereas the respondents have not initiated and proceeded with such enquiry in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. He pointed out that on 27.12.2012, the charge- sheet was served and without waiting for the reply/explanation of the petitioners, the respondent - Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education appointed an eqnuiry officer which was in violation of Rule 16(2) and 16(3) of the said CCA (CCS) Rules, 1958 and therefore, the enquiry cannot be allowed to proceed further and the stay order granted by this Court was justified and the charge-sheet as well as enquiry proceedings deserve to be quashed.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 13/21
9. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record. Rule 16 of the CCA (CCS) Rules, 1958 to its relevant extract reads as under:
"16. Procedure for imposing major penalties : (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the public servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement indicating whether he admits the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence, if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person:
Provided that if shall not be necessary to frame any additional charge when it is proposed to take action in respect of any statement or allegation made by the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 14/21 person charged in the course of his defence. Explanation:- In this sub-rule and in sub-rule (3) the expression "the Disciplinary Authority" shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government servant any o the penalties, specified in clause (i) to (iii) of rule 14.
(3) The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto.
(4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself enquire into such of the charges, as are not admitted or if, it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Enquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge.
(4A) If the Government servant who has not S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 15/21 admitted any of the articles of charge in the written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence appears before the Inquiring Authority, such Authority shall ask him whether he is guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon.
The Inquring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge which the Government servant pleads guilty.
(5) The disciplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquring into charge (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant or retired Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless th person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits:
(i) Provided that no Government servant shall be entitled to take up more than one case at a time. At the time of appearance before the Inquring Officer the retired Government servant should certify that he has only one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 16/21 case on hand at that time.
(ii) Provided further that if the retired Government servant is also a legal practitioner, the restrictions on engaging a legal practitioner by a delinquent Government servant to present the case on his behalf, would apply.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this sub-rule, a Public Prosecutor, Prosecuting Inspector or a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector shall be deemed to be a legal practitioner."
10. The petitioners, as it appears from the record, have not filed any reply or explanation to the charge-sheet served upon them vide Annex.6 dtd.7.12.2012, which permitted them to give their explanation/reply within a period of 15 days thereof even by now. Merely because on the next day 28.12.2012, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education appointed the enquiry officer and prosecuting officer as aforesaid, the petitioners felt that there was a breach of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court and from a bare perusal of aforesaid Rule 16, this Court does not find any violation or breach of such procedure laid down. The Disciplinary Authority after giving the charge-sheet has called for the explanation of the petitioners within 15 days, but the petitioners have failed to do so.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 17/21 The appointment of enquiry officer and the prosecuting officer is not dependant upon the filing of the reply/explanation by the petitioner as a condition precedent. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 16 requires the Disciplinary Authority to frame definite charges on the basis of allegations on which enquiry is proposed to be held and such charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, are required to be communicated in writing to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority a written statement communicating whether he is admitting the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in the present case. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 permits the Government servant to inspect and take extracts from such official records for preparing the reply of defence, if he wants to do the same and such permission may even be refused for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 provides that on receipt of written statement of defence or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Disciplinary authority may either himself enquire into the charges or may appoint an enquiry officer. If the Article of charges are admitted by the Government servant in his written statement, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge and if the Government servant has not admitted any of the article of charge, the enquiry authority shall record the plea, sign the record and proceed to hold enquiry in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority may nominate S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 18/21 any person to present the case in support of charges before the enquiry authority as per Sub-Rule (5).
12. It is misconceived argument on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners to say that without waiting for the reply or explanation or defence of the Government servant, the Disciplinary Authority cannot appoint the enquiry officer. Mere passing of another order vide Annex.7 dtd.28.12.2012 appointing such enquiry officer even without reply of the petitioners does not vitiate the enquiry proceedings and does not render the same non est. Filing of reply by him cannot be a condition precedent for taking a decision by the Disciplinary Authority whether to appoint an enquiry officer or not. It is an independent decision in the discretion of the the Disciplinary Authority. If the Government servant admitted articles of charges, the eqnuiry officer would have recorded the findings accordingly and if he denies the same, enquiry would have proceeded further by the said Enquiry Officer. Sub-Rule (4) does not render the enquiry vitiated even if the enquiry officer is appointed without waiting for the reply of the petitioners.
13. The opportunity to the petitioners to file his defence or written statement is still open in pursuance of the charge-sheet served upon him vide Annex.6 dtd.27.12.2012 and the continuation of the further enquiry by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. Sub-Rule (4) would depend upon the admission of the charge or denial thereof by the Government servant and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 19/21 therefore, it cannot be said as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry itself is rendered void and illegal, merely because on the very next date, the disciplinary authority thought it appropriate to appoint the enquiry officer instead of himself examining the written explanation of the Government servant or the petitioner in the first instance. If the petitioner would have admitted the charge, the Disciplinary Authority could himself record the findings of guilt and there was no need or occasion for Enquiry Authority to proceed further and such order appointing Enquiry Authority could be even infructuous and could be recalled. But if the delinquent denies the charge,the Enquiry Authority already appointed could proceed further immediately. It may be noted here that the present enquiry proceedings are being conducted against the present petitioners in pursuance of consistent directions of this Court on more than one occasion vide orders quoted above to complete such enquiry against the present petitioners expeditiously. The petitioners have not chosen to file any reply to the charge-sheet even by now despite lapse of more than 2 years. The very purpose of directing the respondents to hold expeditious enquiry against the petitioners has been frustrated in this manner resulting in undue advantage to them in continuing in service may be illegally. There is neither any violation of the procedure laid down in the present case nor such a conseqence of rendering the enquiry vitiated and nugatory is provided in Rule 16 even if the enquiry officer is appointed simultaneously or on the very next date when the charge-sheet is served upon him still allowing the petitioners or the Government servant to give his S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 20/21 explanation or defence in pursuance of charge-sheet served upon them. These sequential stages provided in Rule 16 are directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserve to be rejected and the same are hereby rejected. The writ petition is thus, liable to be dismissed.
14. In the absence of expeditious enquiry held in the matter as consistently directed by this court, not only the petitioners who purportedly were appointed in an irregular and illegal manner on the basis of wrong computation of marks and forged marks-sheets are getting the advantage of remaining in service, but on the other hand, the petitioners like Kirti Kumar and Dattesh Mehta and others, whose writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 20.1.2011 have to wait even if they secured higher marks and stood higher in the merit than the present petitioners. To avoid any such illegality and irregularity to be kept under the carpet for long, for this purpose only, the Court had directed the respondents to hold expeditious enquiry in the matter, which was unnecessarily challenged by the present petitioners in the present set of writ petitions, without a valid ground therefor and in view of interim order operating in their favour, the said enquiry initiated in the year 2012 has been stalled for more than one and 1/2 years by now.
15. Though this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have misused and abused the process of this Court by filing the present writ petitions, the Court is not imposing the exemplary costs S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.
Order dt: 29/5/2014 21/21 on the petitioners with a note of caution to them and while directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within 3 months from today positively and produce the result of such enquiry within a period of four months from today before this Court. If the respondents fail to complete the eqnuiry within the aforesaid period of three months, the matter may be again placed before this Court for calling for necessary explanation from the petitioners as well as respondents in this behalf and the respondents are at liberty to move a misc. application in this case. The petitioners are directed to cooperate in the enquiry and appear before the enquiry officer in the first instance on 16.6.2014.
16. The writ petitions thus, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
ss/-
52