MAHAVIR PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 30th March, 2007, inflicting a penalty of censure, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):-

(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein, needs to be first noticed. The petitioner, a substantive employee of Cooperative Department, while on deputation as Managing Director of Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar, in the year 2004, proceeded on leave on 17th December, 2004, on account of sudden demise of his grandfather. The leave applied for was sanctioned by the Administrator of Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar on 22nd February, 2005. By communication dated 1st January, 2005, the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, called for an explanation of the petitioner for his absence on 17th December, 2004. The communication was responded by the petitioner by his reply dated 11th January, 2005. However, the reply was not considered satisfactory and as a consequence, a charge sheet dated 3rd April, 2006, under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958'), was served on the petitioner. An application seeking inspection of the documents as well as request for additional document was made on 22nd April, 2006. The requests aforesaid were declined on 20th May, 2006 as well as 17th July, 2006. On a consideration of the written statement/explanation dated 29th July, 2006, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of 'censure'. Review application preferred was also declined on 29th June, 2009.

(3.) The petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that penalty of 'censure' imposed, has been inflicted with a pre-determined mind and in gross-violation of the principle of 'audi alterum partem'. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders inflicting the penalty of censure (Annexure-8) dated 30th March, 2007, as well as declining the review petition vide order dated 29th June, 2009 (Annexure-10), are illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. Since the petitioner was on deputation as Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar, an autonomous body, governed by its own bye-laws, therefore, the State Government had not controlled over the day-to-day working of it. It is further contended that power of granting casual leave to its officers and employees vests with the autonomous body, and therefore, the Secretary, Cooperative Department, had no legal authority to seek an explanation or to call for any documents from Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar, with reference to the casual leave for 17th December, 2004, which has already been sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. the Administrator of the Bank. Thus, the action in inflicting the penalty of 'censure' is bad for malice in law and abuse of power. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the opinion in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, 1999 AIR(SC) 2626; State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla, 2009 AIR(SC) 1149; Datar Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1989 1 RajLW 387; Atar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors,2010 2 WLC(Raj) 254; Ashok Kumar Solanki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2001 4 WLN(Raj) 638; Sardar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2009 5 WLC(Raj) 48; Khalil Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors,2011 2 SLR 132; and Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 28th October, 1977, reported in Cooperative Law Journal.