KASHI RAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the impugned order of reversion dt. 28th of October 1994 (Annex. 2), the petitioner has laid the instant writ petition. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that at the threshold of his service career, petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Abu Road w.e.f. 17th of December 1971. While in service, petitioner availed promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk in June 1984 and was ordered to be posted in the office of third respondent. The petitioner continued to serve in the office of third respondent as UDC upto 20th of April 1987 and thereafter he was again transferred to Abu Road. While discharging his duties in the office of fourth respondent as UDC, the petitioner was suspended under the order dt. 21st of July 1987 pending a departmental enquiry in connection with alleged financial irregularities in provident fund accounts of the employees. The suspension of the petitioner was followed by a charge -sheet under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1975'). Elaborating the procedure of enquiry under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1975, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that for conducting such an enquiry detailed procedure is provided but while conducting enquiry against him, the established procedure was not adhered to. Emphasizing need for supply of incriminating documents and other materials, petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that the documents were neither supplied to him, nor he was allowed to have access with the record by way of inspection despite repeated requests. In totality, the petitioner has questioned validity of the enquiry conducted against him on the ground that same was concluded in defiance of principles of natural justice. Alleging in the petition that petitioner was not guilty of the charges, the petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that for the alleged omissions the petitioner had no casual connection. The order of reversion dt. 7.1.1999 (Annex. 2) was also called in question on the ground that before issuance of the said order, the petitioner was not furnished copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that on the same set of facts criminal prosecution against him was launched under Sec. 409, 467, 471 IPC and after trial he has been acquitted by the competent criminal Court. As per petitioner, the order of reversion was assailed by him before the appellate authority but his said effort also proved to be abortive and the appellate authority has also rejected his appeal by an absolutely vague and cryptic order dt. 6th March 2000.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 & 2 in their reply have raised the preliminary objection that after passing of the order by the appellate authority, the petitioner has laid this petition with inordinate delay and laches of more than three years and for this delay there is no explanation much less plausible explanation in the petition. Therefore, persisting with that objection the respondent No. 1 & 2 have sought dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches. Adverting to the averments of the petitioner regarding the procedure adopted during enquiry, the respondents have submitted that the enquiry was conducted in strict adherence of principles of natural justice. Alongwith the reply, letter of petitioner dt. 30th January 1990 is also enclosed as Annex. R/1 wherein the petitioner has very candidly submitted that he is not desirous for inspection of the record. With these assertions in the reply, the respondent No. 1 & 2 have stoutly defended the impugned order of reversion as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, has strenuously urged that the order impugned whereby the petitioner is reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk from UDC is bad in law because the same is founded on a laconic enquiry which was conducted by the respondents in ignorance of principles of natural justice. While referring to Annex. R/1 and letters Annex. R/3/1, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that solely on the strength of these documents, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of defalcation. Buttressing his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that legal infirmity in the impugned order of reversion is writ large and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Attacking the order of the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has not examined the grounds of appeal objectively and while rejecting the appeal the appellate authority has not assigned appropriate reasons and therefore the order of appellate authority is not a speaking order and as such the same is not sustainable.