SAJJAN LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III on 04. 09. 1963. Confirmation on the above post was also made on 30. 04. 1964. Since the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Graduate with B. Ed. , he was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II on 13. 10. 1981. Though a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was issued to the petitioner in June, 1981 prior to his promotion to the post of Teacher Grade II, however, no further enquiry was held.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, a fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 07. 05. 1991 with the allegation that at the time of initial appointment on 04. 09. 1963 on the post of Teacher Grade III, the petitioner had submitted a forged mark sheet of Higher Secondary. After holding an enquiry in the above charge sheet, a penalty was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 14. 10. 1993. The petitioner was reverted back to the post of Teacher Grade III and further promotions and selection scale were also withheld by way of punishment.

(3.) THE only ground on which the petitioner has been denied pension and other benefits as claimed in the present writ petition has been that an FIR was registered on 09. 02. 2002 against the petitioner. THE allegation is that the petitioner submitted a forged mark sheet in the year 1963 at the time of his appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is not known as to under what circumstances the FIR could be lodged after more than 39 years of the incident, moreso, when the petitioner had already retired from service on 31. 01. 2000. That apart, the petitioner also having punished for the same offence in the year 1993 itself by way of reversion to the post of Teacher Grade III. Apart from a final report already having been submitted by the police, I find no justification whatsoever to deny the benefit of Revised Pay Scales, as revised from time to time, to the post of Teacher Grade III as also pension when the petitioner already having punished for the same office in the year 1993. No rule or circular whatsoever has been brought to the notice of the Court by the respondents for denying the claim of the petitioner as made in the present writ petition. THEre appears to be a sheer, callous and indifferent mechanical approach of the authorities of the respondents in the present matter.