K D MANTRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an Assistant Sales Tax Officer with effect from August 1, 1955 in an officiating capacity and with effect from February 1, 1956 in a substantive capacity. He was temporarily promoted in an officiating capacity as Commercial Taxes Officer, on which post he was confirmed with effect from October 14, 1971. It was alleged that during the aforesaid period, while the petitioner worked as a Commercial Taxes Officer, he committed certain acts which were considered to constitute misconduct by the State Government. Four charge sheets were served upon the petitioner, copies of which have been placed on the record as Annexures 2,3,4 and 5. The relevant details of the charge sheets are as under,-

(2.) The petitioner was served with charge sheets along with memorandum of allegations in respect of each charge sheet. He was later on compulsory retired by the State Government under the provisions of Rule 244 (2) of Rajasthan Service Rules by the order dated October 9,1979. The order of his compulsory retirement was also sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. But it appears that the petitioner also filed an appeal in that matter before the Rajasthan State Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal on September 19, 1980 and the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was set aside. As such, the relief in the matter relating to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner has not been pressed at the hearing of this writ petition, as the said order already stands quashed by the order of the Tribunal dated September 19, 1980 and it has been ordered by the Tribunal that the petitioner be deemed to continue in the service of the State. The petitioner subsequently retired from Government Service on September 30, 1980 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) The only ground pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition now before me was that the Departmental Enquiries which were initiated against the petitioner by serving upon him charge sheets Annexures 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced three reasons why the enquiries which are pending should not be allowed to be proceeded with by this Court, viz,-