SUBODH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule'a' appended to this order involve a common question of fact and law, as agreed by the parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FOR convenient disposal, the facts of S. B. C. W. Petition No. 4582/92 are being taken into consideration. The petitioner Dr. Subodh Kumar Saxena has passed his M. B. B. S. Examination in they year 1973 and was appointed as Senior Demonstrator in Pathology in the year 1975. It is alleged that he passed his post graduation in Pathology and Micro-Biology in the year 1980 and he was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Pathology. It is also alleged that in the year 1982 he applied for No objection Certificate to the Government for issuance of Pass-Port, which was granted. It is also alleged that he moved an application for grant of deputation for taking up foreign assignment of Guyana. Petitioner has alleged that vide order dt. 10. 3. 83 he was ordered to be relieved and in pursuance of which he was relieved on 11. 3. 83. It is further alleged that vide order dated 25. 5. 85 he was treated on deputation for taking up foreign assignment for one year though as per the petitioner the said order was not served upon him. The petitioner has also alleged that he had requested the Indian High Commission at Guyana to allow him to complete three years duration and in pursuance of which Indian High Commissioner wrote a letter on 8. 10. 84 to the Government of Rajasthan and in the absence of any communication he continued at Guyana. The petitioner also sent a letter to the Government of Rajasthan seeking permission to change the country in March, 1986 and extension of period of deputation by two years. Ultimately, the petitioner returned India in April, 1988 and he joined his duties and posted at R. N. T. Medical College, Udaipur. Thereafter a charge-sheet dt. 1. 7. 88 (Annex. l) was served upon the petitioner proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on 10. 8. 89 after one year. Reply to the charge-sheet was filed on 21. 8[89 (Annex. 2 ). The respondents were not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the documents in his defence vide application dt. 24. 2. 90 (Annex. 3 ). The Enquiry Officer after completing enquiry submitted his report dated 25. 9. 91 (Annex. 4), copy of which was supplied to the petitioner alongwith the notice dated 30. 1. 92 (Annex. 5) directing the petitioner to make his submission in regard to the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner replied the same vide Annex. 6 dated 19. 2. 92 and also submitted supplementary reply on 5. 6. 92 (Annex. 7 ). The respondents vide order dated 25. 8. 92 (Annex. 8) imposed penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the impugned order dated 25. 8. 92 (Annx. 8) may be quashed with all consequential benefits and action of government in refusing extension of leave and change of country be declared illegal and he be given permission as is being given to other persons.

(3.) MR. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of advice of R. P. S. C but the copy was not given initially to the petitioner and relied on DR. Ganpatlal Vs. State (S. B. C. W. Petition No. 4269/90) decided on 22. 10. 91 and its special Appeal No. 373/92 filed by the State was dismissed as time barred in limine on 6. 3. 92. He has prayed that the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.