DHARMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to grant him promotion as is due to him from the date persons junior to him were promoted with a further prayer to set aside the Orders dated 29.03.1990 (Annx.8) and dated 14.03.2005 (Annx.9) vide which the enquiry was initiated against him.

(2.) THE facts in short are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Range Forest Officer in the year 1979. On 29.03.1990, a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner with respect to the allegations of the years 1984 -85 and 1985 -86 that he had caused loss to the department to the tune of Rs. 7000 -8000 while dealing with an order of sale -purchase of bricks at that point of time. In spite of the said charge -sheet, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest vide Order dated 25.11.1991 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 15.10.1991. In the seniority list of the year 2004, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 28 and was at Serial No. 2 amongst the Schedule Caste candidates. Thereafter, vide Order dated 27.12.2004, the vacancies of the year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 were filled by way of promotion. In the said order of promotion, the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest, whereas, the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the said list of promotion. Once again on 19.06.2007, the persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest against the vacancies of 2006 -07 and the petitioner was left out. Even, in the year 2010, vide Order dated 15.09.2009 and 16.11.2010, various Assistant Conservator of Forest were promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest against the vacancies of 2008 -09 and 2009 -10. This time too, the employees belonging to the general category who were much junior to the petitioner were promoted to the said post. In spite of the various representations made by the petitioner requesting for grant of promotion from the date persons junior to him were promoted, no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting due promotion and A.C.P., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench at Jodhpur. In the reply filed by the respondents before the tribunal, they have inter alia stated that the charge -sheet was issued against the petitioner on 29.03.1990 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and now the said charge -sheet, after promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, has been adopted by the Department of Personnel vide Order dated 15.03.2005 and since the said enquiry is pending, the proceedings of the D.P.C. in respect of the petitioner has been kept in sealed cover.

(3.) WHILE praying for setting aside the said charge -sheet, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no explanation has been furnished by the respondents as to why the enquiry initiated against him in the year 1990 has not been completed. It was further submitted that at this juncture, there is no chance of enquiry being conducted fairly inasmuch as neither the documents relied upon are available nor the witnesses are available for examination and cross -examination. Some material witnesses have died during the said long period. In view of the same, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the enquiry. The enquiry proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be dropped. It was submitted that it is a clear grave lapse on the part of the department in not completing the enquiry against the petitioner. With regard to the incident of the year 1985, a charge -sheet was issued in the year 1990 and that too by an incompetent authority. Then, after a lapse of 15 years, the said charge -sheet was dropped and a fresh charge -sheet with same allegations was issued in the year 2005. Even, after a lapse of 10 years, no substantial proceedings are undertaken. Thus, there is a grave administrative lapse on the part of the department and for the said negligence or inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his due promotion and A.C.P.