JEET MAL PAU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 16th November, 1979 (Exbt. 16) and the orders dated 9th April, 1980 and 10th June, 1983 Exbts. 21 and 20 respectively, whereby the order of termination Exbt. 16 was upheld by the Chief Engineer on appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the Rajasthan Government on the post of Truck driver on 1st January, 1956 in the PWD (B and R), Jodhpur. Thereafter the petitioner was posted as Mechanic -cum -Driver on 1st February, 1960 and from 1st April, 1962 he was fixed in the grade of Mechanic Grade II. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade -I with effect from 2nd April, 1965. On 1st October, 1969 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Foreman. On 29th May, 1971 the petitioner was promoted as Mechanical Supervisor.

(3.) MR . Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Exbt. 16 is absolutely laconic order and it does not disclose the application of mind at all. The authority has not passed a detailed speaking order. Thus it is apparent that the order of removal is absolutely mechanical and without application of mind. It has also been brought to my notice that in the Work Charged Rules no appeal lies to the higher authorities and curiously enough nobody brought this fact to the notice of this court while giving order in the first writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore a direction was issued to dispose of the so called appeal filed by the petitioner. It is also very curious to note that the so called appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Chief Engineer but no step was taken to communicate the decision till 23rd June, 1983. In the order Exbt. 21 dated 9h April, 1980 it has been mentioned that no appeal lies in the Workcharged Service Rules as well as in the rules appended to the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Inspite of this the petitioner was not informed and this Court was also not informed about this position. Be that as it may now the question is whether Exbt. 16 can be sustained or not. A perusal of the order Exbt. 16 clearly shows that the authority has not passed a proper speaking order showing the application of mind. It is expected of the authorities that while removing a parson from the service after enquiry at least they should a pass detailed speaking order that they have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the delinquent and after properly considering and disposing of all these objections a final order should be passed but in the present case nothing has been done except to reproduce the facts. Neither it has been shown that what are the depositions of the witnesses and nor it has been taken into consideration the grounds raised by the delinquent. This order is absolutely laconic and deserves to be quashed. So far as the appellate order is concerned the authorities have themselves pointed out that no such appeal lies in the Workcharged Service Rules. Thus both appellate orders have to be ignored.