JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Additional Block Elementary Education Officer at Hanumangarh. A complaint was filed on 21.10.2013, in pursuance to which, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said F.I.R., the complainant made allegations of having accepted illegal gratification by the petitioner. In consequence of the F.I.R., the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent No. 3 vide Order dated 06-07.11.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner inquired about the fate of his appeal dated 24.04.2014 but he was not given any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, the petitioner received a Letter dated 19.05.2014 under the signature of the respondent No. 2 stating that his appeal cannot be decided in view of the Circulars dated 07.07.2010 and 12.01.2001. The petitioner was not able to find any circular dated 12.01.2001 issued by the Administrative Reforms Department of the State Government as referred in the impugned Order dated 19.05.2014 vide which the Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Group-2) had refused to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner under Rule 22 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 on merits while relying on the aforesaid Circular dated 12.01.2001 besides the Circular dated 07.07.2010. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the date mentioned in the Order dtd. 19.5.2014 is incorrect and the actual date of the said circular is 12.1.2011.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for setting aside the impugned order, while raising other arguments inter-alia also contended that the very mentioning of the wrong date in the order impugned has made him suffer for almost eight months. The petitioner was not able to find the Circular dated 12.01.2001 to enable him to file the present writ petition. Even, after filing the present writ petition, he was directed by this Court to place the same on record, which he has not been able to do so till date.

(3.) Be that as it may, the question is as to whether the respondents could refuse to decide the statutory appeal provided under the rules.