K C SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition was prayed that the order dated 20.7.1982 (Annex.8) as well as the order of removal from service dated 13.8.1981 (Annex.6) may be declared illegal and the respondents may be directed to put back the petitioner in service as if he was never removed from service. It is also prayed that he may be given all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the service of the Government of Rajasthan is Assistant Teacher on 11.1.1949. The petitioner was everytually promoted as Senior Teacher vide order dated 9.9.1961. This was after due selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Senior Teacher in Economics. While the petitioner was working as Senior Teacher, he sought one year's extraordinary leave and permission to avail appointment as Lecturer in the Vidya Bhawan. Teachers Training College. He sent one telegram dated 26.7.1965, which was followed by letter dated 26.7.1965 and application dated 16.8.1965 made to the Director Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner. This request was acceded to when Additional Director of Education by his letter dated 13.9.1965 addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Udaipur with reference to letter of Inspector of Schools dated 27.8.1965 directed to relieve the petitioner who has applied for one year's extraordinary leave as proposed by him. The petitioner was doubtful whether the petitioner was allowed to avail appointment in Vidya Bhawan, therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 18.9.1965 to the Additional Director of Education, Bikaner with reference to the letter dated 13.9.1965 endorsed to the Inspector of Schools expressing his doubt whether he will be able to join at Vidya Bhawan as the last date of joining there has passed. This letter was sent by registered post. However, the petitioner was relieved by the Headmaster on 24.9.1965 vide letter/order dated 24.9.1965 wherein it was clearly stated that as directed by the Inspector of Schools, Udaipur vide his communication dated 17.9.1965 in reference to the Additional Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner dated 13.9.1965 the petitioner who has applied for one year's extraordinary leave is relieved to proceed on this leave w.e.f. 24.9.1965. This letter has been placed on record as Annex. 1. Before expiry of the period of one year, the petitioner by letter dated 22.9.1965 wrots to the Additional Director Bikaner that he had been relieved on 24.9.1965 in pursuance of the letter dated 13.9.1965 of the Directorate and his leave may be extended further by one year. This letter was sent by registered post on 22.9.1966. Thereafter the petitioner gave a telegram dated 5.7.1967 that since his extraordinary leave is expiring therefore his posting order may be issued. Nothing was heard in pursuance of the aforesaid telegram and the letter dated 3.8.1967 sent under certificate of posting therefore, the petitioner gave a reply paid telegram on 19.8.1967 but that too without any result. In the absence of posting order the petitioner continued to work at the Vidya Bhawan. It is alleged that a letter dated 13.10.1965 was received by the petitioner as late as on 13.4.1968 whereby it was informed that if the petitioner wants to Join at Vidya Bhawan Teachers Training College, he should resign from service, but before this order dated 17.8.1967 was issued by the Additional Director, Primary and Secondary Education informing the petitioner that since the Headmaster of the Government School was informed that in case you leave this department to Join a private institution you will have to resign from the post and since you have left this department in pursuance of the above order your services have been terminated from the date you left the department. Therefore, it is not possible to take you back in service, i.e. on the post of Senior Teacher. This letter was received by the petitioner and he has placed it on the record as Annexure. 2. The petitioner applied for grant of extraordinary leave from 25.9.1965 to 24.9.1968, but by virtue of the order passed on 17.8.1967 his lien stood terminated so he could not apply for leave in the prescribed form. The petitioner protested against the termination of his lien to the Government of Rajasthan by way of appeal. Then, on 11.4.1978 a memorandum was served on the petitioner that it is proposed to hold an enquiry against him on the charges detailed in the statement of charges as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1958'). The charges related to the period wherein the petitioner was serving in the Vidya Bhawan and his absence from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges. The enquiry was conducted and no witness was produced on the side of the department against the petitioner therefore the petitioner also did not produce any witness in his defence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Presenting Officer and the statement of the Presenting Officer was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, a show -cause notice dated 13.5.1981 purporting to be under Rule -16 (10)(i)(b) of the Rules of 1958 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. A copy of the same has been produced on the record as Annex.4. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report the petitioner was found guilty of the charge that he did not apply in the prescribed form before taking service in a private institution and did not inform the Department inspite of having been confirmed as Lecturer in the Vidya Bhawan Teachers Training College. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted and the petitioner was removed from service by the order dated 13.8.1981. Aggrieved against this order dated 13.8.1981 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of Rajasthan and the same was also dismissed by the order dated 20.7.1982, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 8. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

(3.) I have gone through the writ petition and heard both the learned Counsel at length.