HARI NARAIN GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Hari Narain Gupta way back in the year 1995 challenging the order dated 28.6.1995 and also the charge sheet and enquiry report on the basis of which, it was passed. By the aforesaid order dated 28.6.1995, petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents promoted some of his juniors and, therefore, the petitioner by permission of the Court amended the writ petition so as to assail the promotion granted to the respondent nos.3 to 6 by order dated 4.7.1995 and also prayed that he should be granted selection scale on completion of 15 years of service as was granted to many other similarly situated employees.

(2.) Shri N.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the respondents in utter disregard of the procedure contained in Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 inasmuch as no record whatsoever was produced by the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges. The Enquiry Officer in the report has clearly admitted that this was a 15 years old matter in which relevant record was not traceable and the Presenting Officer has expressed his inability to produce such record and therefore the enquiry report was being prepared merely on the basis of statements of the witnesses who were resummoned for the purpose. Learned counsel submitted that there were six charges against the petitioner. Charge No.4 and 5 were not found proved by the Enquiry Officer, whereas charge no.1 and 6 were found proved and charge no.2 was found partly proved. Learned counsel referred to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in all the three charges namely charge no.1, 2 and 6 and argued that the charges were not found proved on the basis of record or evidence produced by the respondents but rather the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion about proof of the charges on the basis of the reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted that the proceedings were liable to be quashed for the reason of delay as the matter kept pending for more than a decade and a half and finally when the enquiry report was submitted, the procedure given in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was not adhered to. The Enquiry Officer has not discussed anything about three statements recorded on behalf of the department, but merely proceeded to record the finding of guilt against the petitioner on the three charges on the basis of the reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan-(1998) 4 SCC 154 and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors.- (2006) 5 SCC 88 . Relying on the later decision learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charges. There being no evidence in the present case, the penalty order deserves to be quashed and consequently the respondents be directed to grant to the petitioner regular promotion with effect from the date such promotion was granted to his juniors as admitted by the respondents in para 2 of their affidavit that while juniors were promoted against the vacancies of the year 1995-96, but the promotion was not granted to the petitioner on the ground of penalty of stoppage of one grade increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, he was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1997-98. Learned counsel also submitted that respondents in the additional affidavit also stated that the petitioner was given benefit of selection grade with effect from 1.9.1989 by order dated 4.7.1996, but actually the benefit has not been granted to him so far. The petitioner in the meantime had taken voluntary retirement from service on 31.3.2009. He was promoted on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector on 16.12.2005, while his juniors were promoted to that post earlier than him.