KANHAIYA LAL GARG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the Constitution "We the people", have created a welfare State A welfare State, always behaves as a model employer, protecting and promoting the interest of its employees. However, this uthopian vision, at times, gets blured, and, at time, is lost in the labyrinthine corridors of the bureaucracy. Smugged in the grandeur of bureaucratic power, the government officers show scant respect for the rule of law and for human dignity. Like dictators of Banana republic, like satrap of petty kingdoms, government officers trample upon the rights of the people. The employee, who is at the mercy of government officers, at times, is awed and dismayed by the brutal use of force by the State to the extent that he forgets to protect his own interests and rights. However, even the voiceless person canseek refuge in a Court of law and pray for justice to be done. This case is paradigm example of the tussle between the employer and the employees. Since the petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated November 4, 1996, he has approached the haven of this Court for justice.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on December 16, 1967, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari and was posted at Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh. For twenty -seven years, the petitioner performed his services with honesty and dedication. But, he hit a rough weather in the year 1994. On October 27, 1994, a charge sheet, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules'), was issued to the petitioner. In the charge sheet two allegations were levelled against him namely, that while the petitioner was serving in Patwar Mandal Mandawari, he permitted one Ram Chandra son of Balu Raigar to encroach upon government land in Khasra No. 431 and permitted him to carry out his farming. Secondly, that the petitioner took Rs. 3200/ -, by way of illegal gratification, from Ram Chandra, but did not mutate the said land in his name. When Ram Chandra asked the petitioner to return the said amount, he allegedly refused to do so. The departmental enquiry continued form 1994 till 20 -7 -1996.

(3.) MR . D.L.R. Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondents were trying to get rid of the petitioner by one way or the other. Even during continuation of the departmental enquiry, they transferred the petitioner from Patwar Mandal Govindpura, Tehsil Chittorgarh to Patwar Mandal Chiklad, Tehsil Partapgarh. However, as the said order was an illegal one, the petitioner had challenged the same before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal stayed the said order. Unable to get rid of the petitioner by transferring him, the respondents issued an order dated June 18, 1996, whereby the petitioner was retired compulsorily. However, even in this endeavour, the respondents failed; the petitioner challenged the same before the learned Tribunal stayed the said order. Having failed in their endeavors, in order to vicitimise the petitioner, the departmental enquiry was changed into a Kangaroo enquiry. The fundamental requirements of principles of natural justice were ignored. Although the petitioner had a right to cross -examine the witnesses, but the said opportunity was denied to him. Although the petitioner had a right to be defended by a defence nominee, but after the transfer of petitioner defence nominee, no new defence nominee was ever appointed. Thus, the petitioner was denied the right to defend himself. Hence, the departmental enquiry was a sham. To say the least, it was an illegal enquiry. Furthermore, after the issuance of the second show cause notice, thrice the petitioner sought copies of certain documents, but on all occasions his requests were ignored. Furthermore, despite the fact that the complainant, Ram Chandra had submitted a letter along with an affidavit, wherein he clearly stated that the allegation made by him against the petitioner were absolutely false, the Enquiry Officer did not discuss the same in the enquiry report. Thus, the Enquiry Officer has ignored a relevant piece of evidence, which is readily available on record. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority has not discussed the evidence point -wise as is required under Rule 16(9) of the CCA Rules. Lastly, even the Disciplinary Authority has not discussed the affidavit filed by the complainant clearly exonerating the petitioner of the allegation levelled against him.