GANPAT RAJ MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner who was serving as Executive Engineer, was served with a charge -sheet on 2.1.1995, before which he was suspended on 28.6.1994. The petitioner challenged the suspension order by filing the Writ Petition No. 2489/1996. It was decided by this Court by order dated 14.2.1997 wherein this Court directed respondents to complete the domestic enquiry within a period of six months and incase, by any reason whatsoever, the departmental enquiry is not concluded by that date, suspension order shall be deemed to be automatically vacated. Thereafter the respondents submitted an application for extension of time which was dismissed on 12.10.1998 which appears to be due to reason that suspension order was revoked and, therefore, it was thought that application for extension of time has become infructuous. It is relevant to mention here that as per order dated 14.2.1997, the only consequence of not completing the domestic enquiry was an automatic revocation of suspension order. Ultimately the enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer and enquiry report dated 30.7.1997, was sent to the Disciplinary Authority. Copy of enquiry report is Annex. 1. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 12.8.1997 vide Annex. 11. The enquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice, copy of which is Annex. 12. Ultimately on 14.5.1999, an order was passed holding the petitioner guilty and his five grade annual increments were with -held with cumulative effect. The petitioner has challenged the above order of punishment dated 14.5.1999 (Annex. 13) as well as enquiry report itself.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 21.2.1994, the then Chief Minister took the special meeting of the District Administration and issued necessary direction and called upon the District Administration to immediately commission new tube wells and execute the repair work for revival of the hand -pumps in all the villages of the District positively by the end of 31.3.1994 in order to facilitate supply of drinking water to the public at large. Delinquencies alleged against the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased some material during this period upto 31.3.1994 in either small lot or without obtaining N.O.C. and in higher rates in violation to rules. The circumstances in which the alleged purchases were made, have been given in the writ petition justifying the action by saying that purchases were in accordance with law, materials were purchased in market rate or evn in less than rate which were prevailing in the market and no loss has been caused to any action of the petitioner. Not only this but in fact all the purchases were made by the concerned A. En.'s only and not by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that Disciplinary Authority relying upon the above enquiry report passed the order of punishment and when the enquiry report itself is liable to be set aside, the order of punishment also deserves to be set aside. learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to refer number of documents produced alongwith writ petition and tried to justify the action of petitioner in acting upon the direction which was issued by Chief Minister at that time. It is also stated that allegation of delinquancies in purchase of material is relating to the month of March 1994 only; whereas the meeting was taken by Chief Minister in the last week of Feb. 1994, therefore, the petitioner acted as an officer who was required to act in accordance with directions issued by the Government and thus fact has not denied by the respondent in reply to the writ petition.