STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LAKHPAT RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 10.8.2005 whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension imposed on the respondent-writ-petitioner by way of disciplinary measure has been annulled.

(2.) We have heard Mr.K.L.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants-State and Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-writ-petitioner.

(3.) The prefatory facts preceding the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the respondent-writ-petitioner are that at the relevant time i.e. in 1983, he was Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department (PHED) and posted as Technical Assistant to the Additional Chief Engineer at Ajmer. Civil suits had been instituted by four firms with regard to the disputes arising out of the contracts awarded to them for drilling hand pumps at various places by the department. Vis-a-vis the said civil proceedings, the respondent-writ-petitioner was appointed as officer-incharge on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. According to him, on 3.2.1983, he received a letter dated 1/2.2.1983 signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Medical & Health (Group-4) Department, Jaipur addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Jaipur with a copy endorsed to him. A proforma of proposed compromise containing the terms and conditions thereof also did accompany the letter. The letter mentioned that in conformity with the opinion expressed by the Law Department of the State, if the agencies involved were prepared to compromise the suits, then the same may be entered into in terms of the accompanying format and accordingly, the same be filed in Court. The letter also mentioned the particulars of communication of the Law Department approving this course of action. By the endorsement at the foot of the letter vis-a-vis the respondent-writpetitioner at serial no.2 to whom a copy thereof was forwarded, he was asked to get the compromise prepared and filed in Court immediately and inform the department accordingly. The respondent-writ-petitioner on receipt of this letter contacted the concerned learned Government Advocate at Ajmer, who by his letter dated 3.2.1983 required him to verify the details of the compromise from the Chief Engineer, Jaipur. To this, the respondent-writ-petitioner replied by his letter dated 4.2.1983 that the compromise proforma was correct and that the process needs to be completed early. The learned Government Advocate, however, addressed a letter dated 4.2.1983 to the Collector, Ajmer, Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Law Minister, Government of Rajasthan and the officer-in-charge i.e.respondentwrit- petitioner opining that the State Government ought to reconsider the terms of the compromise. As the respondent-writpetitioner perceived that in view of the instructions contained in the letter dated 1/2.2.1983, in the capacity of the officer-incharge on behalf of the State-respondents early action ought to be ensured, he by his letter dated 4.2.1983 insisted that the compromise be effected as instructed by the higher authorities. It, however, transpired that there was thereafter some rethinking at the higher level and the respondent-writ-petitioner was subsequently informed telephonically by the Chief Engineer on 7.2.1983 not to take further steps in the matter of compromise. The respondent-writ-petitioner has averred that on receiving such instruction, he did not further verify the compromise which however was filed in Court on or before 7.2.1983, but eventually, in absence of verification, was withdrawn and no order was passed thereon.