VED PRAKASH Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE WARE-HOUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant Grade II in the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') by the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated January 27, 1967 and was posted at Pilibanga, Distiict Sri Ganganagar. He was confirmed on the aforesaid post by the order dated July 25, 1968 with effect from June 18, 1968.

(2.) THE petitioner was transferred to Sojat Road Office of the Corporation and while he was working there, he was placed under suspension by an order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated February, 21, 1970. A charge sheet along with a memorandum of allegations dated April 16, 1970 was served upon the petitioner and as a result of the disciplinary inquiry a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated July 6, 1970. An adverse entry in the confidential record of the petitioner was made in which it was inter alia stated that there were some complaints against the petitioner at Sojat for which the petitioner was penalised. The Managing Director, by his letter dated February 22, 1971 informed the petitioner about the adverse entry made in his confidential record. The petitioner filed an appeal/review petition to the Chairman of the Corporation regarding imposition of penalty on October 9, 1972. Meanwhile the respondents Nos. 4 to 24, who are alleged to be junior to the petitioner in the category of Technical Assistant Grade II, were prometed as Warehousing Managers Grade II.

(3.) THE reply of the respondent Corporation is that the petitioner was informed by the letter of the Managing Director dated July 17, 1970 that he would be governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'CCA Rules') until the Corporation frames separate rules of its own, in respect of the conduct and discipline of its employees, but the petitioner preferred on appeal/review on October 9, 1972 against the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated July 6, 1970 and the same was rejected by the Executive Committee of the Corporation in its meeting held on September 24, 1973. The petitioner was informed about the rejection of his review petition by the letter of the Managing Director dated March 14, 1974. It was also stated by the respondent that the petitioner's case for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Executive Committee of the Corporation and which consisted of the Chairman, Managing Director and the Finance Director of the Corporation. The Departmental Promotion Committee scrutinized the record of all eligible candidates including the petitioner, but found the respondents more suitable than the petitioner. The respondents were promoted on the posts of Ware housing Managers Grade II, on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which was accepted by the Executive Committee of the Corporation in its meeting held on December 28, 1973. According to the respondent corporation, the petitioner had wrongly stated in the writ petition that his case for promotion was not considered, while the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the petitioner's case for promotion but did not find him suitable. The respondents also stated that the adverse entry was justified as the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Managing Director was maintained by the Executive Committee, as the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.