STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. P D PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335/92 decided on 17. 1. 97. The writ petitioner before the Single Bench was initially a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. In the year 1984, he was appointed by the State of Rajasthan as Competent Authority at Jaipur under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short `the Act' ). While functioning as the Competent Authority, he passed an order on 18. 8. 87 exempting some land transferred by its owners to Jagjivan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. a registered Cooperative Housing Society, on the basis of certain government notifications. In some other cases, the writ petitioner had rejected the application for exemption of other land owners distinguishing their cases from the cases of those who were granted exemption u/s. 21 of the Act. Appeals were taken from those decisions and the Government supported the view taken by the writ petitioner in his order. However, one Prithvi Singh, a stranger to the proceedings, filed a complaint before the Lokayukta and sent a copy of the compliant to the State of Rajasthan through the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, urging upon the Government to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. The Lokayukta took cognizance of the case and ordered an enquiry and investigation into it. One Vijay Pal Choudhary intervened in the matter and made a statement. The writ petitioner was called upon to give his comments which he submitted in details before the Lokayukta. On 23. 10. 89, the Lokayukta found it to be a fit case for investigation under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1973. Ultimately, the State Government issued a charge sheet against the writ petitioner and a memorandum in this regard was served on the writ petitioner on 6. 3. 92. The writ petitioner challenged this action of the Government in a writ petition and obtained an interim stay. In the meantime, the writ petitioner was promoted to the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1993 and retired on superannuation on 31. 7. 96.

(2.) THE writ petitioner challenged the action initiated against him, mainly on three grounds (i) that after his retirement, the proceedings could not continue, (ii) that on his promotion to Indian Administrative Service, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short `the Rules of 1958') under which action was initiated against him, did not apply to him and (iii) that an adjudicatory order, which was subject to appeal and revision, could not form the basis of any disciplinary proceeding against him.

(3.) NORMALLY, a person against whom disciplinary proceeding is pending would not be promoted to the Indian Administrative Service. If such a person is promoted, despite the disciplinary proceedings being pending against him, the only inference could be that the charges against him are either found to be groundless or the misconduct has been condoned by the State Government. In the present case, the explanation of the State Government for promotion of the writ petitioner despite pending enquiry is that the charge sheet had been stayed by this Court by passing an interim order. It was also contended that as the promotion was given under an interim order, it was subject to the final decision of the writ petition. On 17. 3. 92, the following order was passed by the Court staying operation of the charge sheet: <DJG> "17. 3. 92 Hon'ble M. R. Calla J.</DJG> Mr. Paras Kuhad, for the petitioner Issue notice of the stay application. The rule is made returnable by 10. 4. 92. Notices be given "dasti" to the counsel for the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the operation of the memorandum dated 6. 3. 92 issued by the Department of Personnel (K- III) is hereby stayed. " Thereafter, on 13. 4. 92, the order was confirmed as under: <DJG> "13. 4. 92 Hon'ble M. R. Calla J.</DJG> Shri Paras Kuhad, for the petitioner Shri Pekar Farooq, Dy. GA for respondents. It has been submitted that the respondents have been served as back as on 21. 3. 1992. Shri Pekar Farooq wants time to file reply. The interim order dt. 17. 3. 92 is confirmed to last till the disposal of the writ petition. The respondents will be at liberty to file an application for vacation/modification of the stay order after filing of the reply to the writ petition. The case be listed as and when any application for vacation/ modification of the interim order is filed after filing of the reply to the writ petition. "