JAGDEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan. He became due for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1995. Though he was considered for promotion, in the DPC Meeting in the year 1995 but he was superseded and his juniors were promoted. On enquiries he came to know that the result of his selection was kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of Departmental Enquiry against him. Again in January' 96, five more jouniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, superseding the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the candidates who are facing enquiries are given adhoc promotions on the basis of review of their cases during the pendency of enquiry. THE petitioner, therefore, represented for being granted adhoc promotion. Even that was not decided. THE petitioner, thereupon, moved this petition for getting the chargesheet dated 2. 11. 94 issued to him, quashed on various grounds.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the chargesheet was highly belated as the allegations related to the period of June-July' 86 whereas the chargesheet was issued on 2. 11. 94. The petitioner further submits that even the enquiry is not being proceeded with expeditiously and despite there being no stay order from this Court, it has not been completed in the last five years. The petitioner also submits that the charges are frivolous and do not amount to any misconduct at all and making a proposal or passing of an order or taking any action in discharge of duties, even if it is ultimately found to be wrong action, cannot by itself amount to a misconduct. The petitioner also contended that the action against him is not a bonafide action as it was taken on the eve of his consideration for promotion and during the pendency of the first enquiry, another enquiry has also been started on similar charges against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, no inference can be drawn that the enquiry is lingering because of non-cooperation of the petitioner. Non-completion of an enquiry in a period of five years clearly shows that that enquiry has been delayed, more so, when the charges to be proved do not involve complicated questions in which voluminous evidence would be necessary. The charges are based on documentary evidence and not on oral evidence.