JAI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as Sub -Inspector (Technical) Police Wireless Station, Barmer. He was served with memorandum dated 19 -4 -1975 along with charge -sheet and statement of allegations. He submitted his reply vide his representation dated 17 -12 -1975. Regular inquiry was held against him and he was found guilty of the charges and penalty of removal was passed by order dated 14 -4 -1976 (Ex. 10). Petitioner preferred an appeal which was decided by order dated 27 -8 -1977 wherein it was held that the charges have been proved against the petitioner but the penalty of removal imposed on the petitioner was excessive, and, therefore, he set aside that penalty and stopped increments for 2 years and it was further ordered that petitioner will be taken on duty but he will not be paid any salary during his absence, except that the intervening period will be treated as pay without leave, after deducting the leave which were due with the petitioner and this absence from duty shall not affect his further pay, increment, pension gratuity etc. Petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and the Government vide his order dated February 7, 1978, (Ex. 15) maintained that the charges against the petitioner have been proved but he further reduced quantum of punishment of stoppage of increments for one year instead of two years. Present writ petition has been filed on these circumstances and only points pressed before me are : First, that Shri B.K. Dube has been impleaded as respondent by name and he has not filed any reply or affidavit controverting allegations of malafide against him. I have looked into the writ petition, as also in the reply; allegations of malafide against Shri B.K. Dube are very vague and without any basic foundation, therefore, in my opinion failure to file affidavit controverting the affidavit is of no avail to the petitioner. Though, it would have been better if the reply of the respondents No. 1 to 3 would have been supported by an affidavit of Shri B.K. Dube controverting little allegations of malafide against him.

(2.) OTHER point pressed before me was that petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity before passing orders Ex. 13 and Ex. 15 by which he was penalised and his salary for the intervening period was with held and reliance has been placed on 1968 SC 240 Gopal Krishna v. State of MP, I have looked into the case and in my opinion it is not applicable to the present case. This point has no force.

(3.) IT was also contended before me that Ex. 10, Ex. 13 and Ex. 15 are not speaking orders. They have not given any reasons and therefore they should be quashed. I have gone through these orders. Ex. 10 is in details and has given reasons as to why the charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved. Ex. 13 which is an appeal, also has enumerated the grounds urged by the petitioner in his appeal and they have also been dealt with separately. More over, since the Appellate Authority has also come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been proved, it was not necessary for the Appellate Authority to deal in detail. Ex. 15 is an order passed on review and the memo of review and that memo of appeal filed by the petitioner are almost identical and no new point was raised in review which had not been pressed before the Appellate Authority, and, therefore, in my view, it was not necessary for the Reviewing Authority to deal with the same point again in detail.