JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner may have or may not have committed delinquency during the period of his service. This and a further question as to whether order of punishment passed against him is justified or not does not require a determination on merit at this stage because I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition deserves to be decided on a limited ground namely, whether the dismissal of the review petition filed under rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as barred by limitation is legally justified,

(2.) BEFORE I proceed further, I consider it appropriate to take note of the agony which the petitioner has suffered for no fault of his. Order of his removal from service was issued on 30. 11. 81. The petitioner says that he had suffered from mental disorder and while he was undergoing treatment the authorities proceeded against him on the ground of his alleged absence from illness he reported for duty but he was not allowed to join. Instead, he was told that he stands removed from service. He then applied for supply of copy of order of punishment and expressed his willingness to bear the expenses. His request however, went unheeded. He then filed a review petition before the Governor under Rule-34 of 1958 Rules. The same has been dismissed as barred by limitation and this decision has been conveyed to him vide letter dated, 7. 11. 86. He then filed this writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner has been waiting with a faint hope of justice. His case could not be taken up for hearing for last five years. This may be due to heavy work load in the Court. This may also be on account of non-availability of sufficient number of Judges in the High Court. It is difficult to pin point a particular reason which comes as a stumbling block in the matter of timely appointment of Judges but the fact remains that there is undue delay in such appointments.

(3.) PETITIONER has challenged the action of the respondents resulting in his dismissal from service as well as rejection of his review petition. Apart from other points, the petitioner has asserted that non-supply of copy of the order of punishment has caused serious prejudice to him because in the absence of copy of order of punishment, he could not effectively challenge the same either in review petition or in this writ petition and also that dismissal of his review petition on the ground of limitation is without jurisdiction.