M C SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been file against the action taken by the State Government for imposing penalty by the order dated 8.10.1985 (Annexure-2) as null and void.

(2.) It has been prayed that rules 21; 32, 33 and 34 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958 be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution and recommendations of D.P.C. convened in the year 1989 with respect to the post of Superintending Engineer and the consequential order dated 27.12.1989 as also the proceedings of DPC concerned in the year 1990 for the post of Additional Chief Engineer may be declared as illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution and be set aside.

(3.) It is submitted by Shri Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1969 in the Irrigation Department and was posted at Bharatpur in the year 1973. The petitioner besides other works had to look after the work of repairs and restoration of number flood damaged works under his division. An anonymous complaint was received by the State Government vide letter dated 14.3.1973 on account of which a preliminary enquiry was sought to be initiated and matter was referred to the A.C.D., Bharatpur. The allegation made in the anonymous complaint was regarding the materials namely; steel, cement, mortar/concrete and soil etc. from the works site of seol, Baretha Bundns were not in accordance with the agreement entered in between the Government and the Contractor. The samples were taken on 26.4.1973 and 27.4.1973 and were sent for testing in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) at Jaipur on the basis of certain discrepancies found in the samples. However, no action by the A.C.D. was taken in the matter. A Departmental Enquiry (D.E.) was initiated in the year 1979. The Commissioner of Department of Enquiries was appointed as enquiry officer who after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and four other persons who were involved in the enquiry exonerated the petitioner as also other four persons who were tried simultaneously. It was inter alia held that the samples taken vide Ex. P 2 and Ex.P 4 are unreliable and no reliance can be placed on them. It was held that no charge is proved against the petitioner as well as against the other four persons who were jointly tried. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner was responsible for the supervisory negligence and has misconducted himself. He, therefore, imposed punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments without cumulative effect. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a first review application which was decided vide order dated 17.12.1986 (Annexure 5). By this order the punishment of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was converted into that of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. It is pointed out that since the petitioner had not been informed of any other basis or reasons on account of which the enquiry was held, a second review application was filed praying that the petitioner should be informed of any other reasons on which the disciplinary authority has based its findings. However, this review petition was also rejected vide order dated 28.8.1988 (Annexure-9).