BACHCHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a resident of Kishangarh and working as Draftsman/Surveyor in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (respondent No. 3), has filed this writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging, inter alia, that the order dated 24.6.19954 (Annex. 4), suspending the petitioner, be quashed and set aside and has further prayed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits maintaining his continuity of service. The back ground of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Draftsman /Surveyor against regular vacancy in the year 1980 by the Administrator, Municipal Board, Kishangarh. It is stated that on 21.12.1994 a meeting of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur was held in which resolution No. 5 was passed by which powers under sub-clauses (2) to (5) of section 310 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 stood vested with the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation. It is stated that in the year 1990 the petitioner was transferred to Bharatpur and within a period of two months he was transferred back to Kishangarh. In the year 1993, he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jaipur by the order of the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.5.1993 he was transferred to Municipal Board, Mount Abu and vide order dated 7.6.1993 the petitioner stood transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. Both the orders dated 25.5.1993 (Annx. 1) and 7.6.1993 (Annx. 2) were passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was lodged by one individual with the Anti-Corruption Department regarding taking of illegal gratification by the petitioner and the matter was investigated and an FIR No. 6/92 was registered in the year 1992. It is stated in the petition that challan papers have been filed in the month of June, 1995. Vide order dated 12.6.1995, passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.6.1995 (Annx. 4) the services of the petitioner were suspended. Feeling aggrieved with the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also per us act the documents on record.

(3.) Shri Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended at the Bar that it was not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have complied with the order of transfer dated 12.6.1995 (Annx. 3) inasmuch as it had not been passed by the competent authority. As per the learned counsel, it should have been passed by the Director, Local Bodies instead of Dy. Secretary to the Government. He has further contended that as the petitioner had not joined his duties at Jodhpur after his transfer, the order of suspension, in the garb of pendency of an enquiry regarding Kishangarh, has been passed by the respondent No. 2. He has also made allegations of mala fide against the respondents. It has been contended that the respondent No. 2 has no right to issue the order of suspension (Annx. 4).