BHARAT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order of dismissal dt. 08.11.2005 and dismissal of appeal on review. It is stated that petitioner was dismissed from service on registration of case under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondents dispensed with the enquiry by invoking rule 19(2) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "CCA Rules") on the erroneous ground, thus impugned order deserves to be set aside, more so when, petitioner has now been acquitted in the criminal case, thus nothing remains adverse to him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand supported the action of respondent/s and submits that petitioner was detained in custody on registration of case. Since, case was registered under provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, thus enquiry was dispensed with. Looking to the conduct of petitioner in regard to further offence under Secs. 223 and 224 of IPC, petitioner was removed from service. Accordingly, prayer is made to sustain the impugned orders.

(3.) THE perusal of rule quoted above reveals that it may be invoked only in given circumstances. The respondents have failed to indicate such circumstances, so as to dispense with the regular enquiry under rule 16 of CCA Rules. The petitioner was finally acquitted in both the criminal cases, thus mere registration of case cannot be taken as ground to dispense with the enquiry and service. The fact could have been different if regular enquiry is conducted and on receipt of adverse enquiry report, to remove the person from service. Learned counsel has referred a judgment of Division Bench in the case of Udai Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 339/1999 wherein in the similar circumstances, order of dismissal was passed by invoking Rule 19(2) of CCA Rule was set aside. Therein also, employee was acquitted yet the order of dismissal was not recalled. I find that case in hand is covered by the judgment referred to above and otherwise, order of dismissal by invoking Rule 19(2) of CCA Rules is not at all justified as no ground is made out to dispense with the enquiry. Merely, leveling allegation in FIR cannot be taken as final conclusion against any person unless it is proved in the trial. However, the respondents seems to be motivated with the allegations made against the petitioner. They, instead of holding enquiry as per provisions of law, invoked Rule 19(2) of CCA Rules without justified reasons. The impugned order of dismissal is accordingly set aside so as the order passed on appeal in review. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with the benefit of notional fixation and continuity in service. He would not be entitled for wages for intervening period as the writ petition has been filed in the year 2011 for an order of dismissal passed on 08th November, 2005. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed in the matter as per rule 16 of CCA Rules, if they so choose.