STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHD. SHABAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order dated 8.2.2010 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2691/1996 adjudging the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') and consequential dismissal of the respondent/writ petitioner from service, to be invalid.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/writ respondents and Ms.Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. Facts in brief, necessary to be noticed, are that the respondent/writ petitioner, while posted as constable in CID, Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under the appellants/writ respondents, was subjected to departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules, and in connection therewith, was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.8.1993. Subsequent thereto, a memorandum of charges was issued on 20.8.1993 together with statement of allegations in support thereof. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed, in succession, enquiry officers from time to time. The respondent/writ petitioner was, during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, reinstated in service without prejudice thereto (departmental enquiry). According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the Enquiry Officer last appointed, proceeded ex parte against him without however, giving proper notice of the dates thereof and recorded evidence of the witnesses of the disciplinary authority and he was not afforded any opportunity of cross -examining them. He has further pleaded that no Presenting Officer was appointed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer acted in the said capacity as well. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report recording a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner had been proved, whereafter according to him (respondent/writ petitioner), the Disciplinary Authority without issuing any notice to him alongwith a copy of the enquiry report or affording any opportunity of hearing to him, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 31.8.1995. The respondent/writ petitioner has alleged that even the order of dismissal did not carry with it the report of the Enquiry Officer. As his departmental appeal failed, he sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, by taking note of the contentions of the respondent/writ petitioner individually and collectively, concluded that had he been furnished with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he could have highlighted the procedural and other illegalities vitiating in the disciplinary proceeding, and thus, the omission to do so (furnishing a copy of the enquiry report) did patently result in his prejudice. The learned Single Judge, in particular, also referred to the omission on the part of the appellants to issue notice on the point of disagreement and reasons in support thereof qua the Enquiry Officer vis -a -vis charge No.3. The omission to appoint the Presenting Officer and the consequent conduct of the departmental proceedings by the Enquiry Officer as the Presenting Officer while examining the witnesses, was also noticed. That the departmental Appellate Authority did not apply his mind to these violations, was also noted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge recorded as well that no material had been placed to demonstrate that notice had been issued to the respondent/writ petitioner to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings would be conducted ex parte and/or of the dates on which its witnesses would be examined. The disciplinary proceeding was therefore, held to be violative of the Rules and also of the principles of natural justice.