BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 22.9.1988 (Anx. 3) passed by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Sub Division -I, Hanumangarh junction (respondent No. 3), whereby, he was dismissed from service for the alleged misconduct of wilful absence from duty and prayed that he be reinstated in service and be given all consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as 'Bildar' on 18.7.1972. Thereafter by order dated 24.8.1974 (Anx. 1), he was declared as a semi permanent employee and by office order dated 13.10.1986 (Anx. 2), after completion of ten years service, he was given permanent status w.e.f. 1.4.1985. It appears that on 30.8.1985, the petitioner was arrested by the S.H.O. police station, Hanumangarh and a case was registered against him under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against him. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting the trial, convicted the petitioner of the said offences and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1988 before the High Court Bench at Jaipur, which was accepted and vide judgment dated 26.11.1988 (Anx. 4) he was acquitted of the said offences. The petitioner remained in Jail from 26.4.1988 till 26.11.1988 when he was ultimately acquitted by the High Court. In the meanwhile respondent No. 1 issued notices to the petitioner on 7.5.1988, 1.6.1988, 13.6.1988 28.6.1988 Annexures R/1 to R/4 and published notices in news papers to show cause as to why necessary action be not taken against him for him wilful absence from duty since 17.4.1988. Those notices were not served on the petitioner personally. Thereupon, the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 22.9.1988 (Annx. 3) dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground of his alleged wilful absence from duty and also on the ground that he was probably undergoing sentence under some offences. After the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court, he filed an application (Annx. 5) along with the judgment of the High Court (Annex. 4) and prayed that he be reinstated in service and his arrears of salary be also paid to him. The respondents despite his repeated reminders did not accede to his request. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder has asserted that after Sessions Judge had convicted him, he was serving the sentence in the jail from 26.4.1988 till 26.11.1988 when he was acquitted by the High Court and that no notice was ever served upon him. He has averred that neither any enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1958 was conducted against him nor the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India were complied with and as such the impugned dismissal order is illegal and unjustified.