FAIYAJ MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated September 23, 1987, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired. It has been prayed that the petitioner may be reinstated on the post which he was holding prior to his compulsory retirement.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Copyist cum Typist in the Office of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur. By the order dated August 25, 1986, he was transferred to the post of Copyist. The copy of this order was delivered to the petitioner on August 28, 1986, but the petitioner did not hand-over the charge to Shri Chetan Prakash Trivedi. He was again orally asked by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, to handover the charge of the post of Shri Chetan Prakash Trivedi, but the petitioner did not comply with the order and ultimately on September 8, 1986, the charge was given to Shri Chetan Prakash Trivedi and the charge report was prepared but the petitioner refused to sign that charge handing and taking over report. Thus, the petitioner has disobeyed the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, as he refused to comply with the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur and refused to handover the charge. A departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, was initiated and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, was appointed as the Enquiry Office. The charge-sheet on the petitioner was served on September 10, 1986. The petitioner did not appoint any defence nominee and showed his intention to defend himself during the departmental enquiry. The departmental nominee examined only Shri Om Prakash Singh - the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, and closed its evidence. The petitioner did not produce any evidence. He even did not examine himself during the enquiiy. The learned Enquiry Officer, i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, after completing the enquiry, submitted its report on July 27, 1987, to the District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The disciplinary authoiity thereafter, by its order dated September 23, 1987, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and other relevant record the ordered for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on proportionate compensation. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided the defence nominee, which vitiates the whole enquiry and the punishment imposed upon him. It is further contended that the enquiry was not properly made by the Enquiry Officer in the present case and only the statement of Shri Omprakash Singh - Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, was recorded, while in the list of the witnesses, the names of four witnesses were given. Lastly, it is contended that even Shri Chetan Prakash Trivedi, to whom it is said that the charge was not handed-over by the petitioner, has not been produced and, therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is wholly un-called for.