NASEERUDEEN NAZAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of dismissal dated 5 -8 -69 passed by the respondent No. 2, Director, Printing and Stationery, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur affirmed in appeal by the State of Rajasthan on 26 -8 -71. The petitioner initially joined the Government Press an a Binder and by 1956 was promoted as a Printer Grade I. On 4 -9 -63 the petitioner was transferred to Udaipur Government Printing Press. While he was working there a charge sheet dated 26 -8 -65 was served upon him levelling 5 charges on which it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him, In pursuance of the inquiry held against him the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from Printer Grade I to Printer Grade II vide order dated 10 -11 -65. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of reversion. It appears that the Government referred the appeal to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which by its communication dated 1 -9 -67 seems to have advised the Government to allow the appeal and to hold a fresh inquiry. Pursuance of this the Government by its letter of 12 -1 -68 informed the Director of Printing and Stationery that the appeal which had been preferred by the petitioner had been accepted and was directed that there should be a fresh inquiry. The petitioner was also informed by the respondent 2 by his letter of 7 -2 -68 that his appeal had been accepted and it had been directed to hold a fresh inquiry. The petitioner was also informed by the respondent 2 by his letter of 7 -2 -68 that his appeal had been accepted and it had been directed to hold a fresh inquiry.

(2.) Thereafter on 26 -4 -68 an order was passed by the respondent 2 appointing the Superintendent Government Press' Jaipur as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. A long correspondence ensued in which the petitioner insisted that before he could join the inquiry be must be reinstated as Printer Grade I and paid his full emoluments and pointing out the difficulties in joining without being reinstated as Grade I Printer. The respondent however did not agree and informed him by a letter dated 26 -8 -68 that this request of his could not be entertained. This was repeated by the respondent 2 by his letter dated 2 -11 -68 and 10 -12 -68 and the petitioner was told by the latter that the petitioner must face the inquiry otherwise he will be responsible for the consequences that may arise for such disobedience. On 18 -10 -68 the Inquiry Officer went to Udaipur where the petitioner was then Working, but the petitioner refused to participate in the inquiry saying that unless he is first restored to Printer Grade I he would not participate in the inquiry. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication dated 13 -6 -69 informing him that he should present himself before the Inquiry Officer on 19 -6 -69 for inquiry. The petitioner however on 17 -6 -69 asked for an adjournment and reiterated the earlier objection to participate in the enquiry. Evidently the Inquiry Officer felt that the petitioner was not going to participate in the inquiry and the proceedings were thereafter held ex parte. Ultimately the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 15 -7 -69 from respondent No. 2 in which it was stated that on a careful consideration of the report and in particular the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner it had provisionally been decided that the petitioner is liable to be dismissed from service and calling upon him to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and informing him any representation which he may make should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach respondent no. 2 cot later than 15 day from the receipt of this letter by the petitioner. The petitioner's reply dated 31 -7 -69 to the show cause was submitted in the office of the Suprintendent of Printing Press, Udaipur for being forwarded to respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner received an order dated 5 -8 -69 of respondent No. 2 wherein punishment of dismissal was inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his appeal to the State Govern -ment which was rejected by order dated 26 -8 -71 and a communication in that regard was received by him from the Government by its letter dated 18 -11 -71. Thereafter the petitioner has come to this Court and has impugned both the orders of dismissal and appellate order.

(3.) The first objection that Mr. Mridul the learned counsel for the petitioner raises is that the petitioner's appeal which he had filed against the order of reversion dated 8 -11 -69 was only decided by the state Government 30 -9 -69 and therefore during the pendency of the appeal there could have been no occasion to hold any further inquiry against him resulting in his dismissal of 6 -8 -69 i.e. much earlier than even the dismissal of his appeal against the earlier reversion order. I am afraid the construction put on this letter by Mr. Mridul is not warranted. As a matter of fact this letter itself mentions that an appeal filed by the petitioner was sent to the Public Service Commission which had informed the State Government that the appeal of the petitioner should be accepted. It is noted in this order that the State Government had in pursuance of that directed by its order of 12 -1 -68 that the appeal of the petitioner was accepted but direction was being given to remind the matter for further inquiry. The purpose of this order was merely to direct that as order of 10 -11 -65 had been set aside the petitioner will work as printer Grade I during the inquiry. It is true that no specific appellate order by which the petitioner's appeal had been accepted has been placed on record but is quite clear that what has happened is that after the petitioner had filed the appeal against the order of reversion on 10 -11 -65 the matter was referred to the Public Service Commission which had informed the Government by its letter of 1967 that the appeal of the petitioner should be allowed. Subsequent actions of the State Government by its letter of 16 -11 -67 and the information conveyed to the petitioner on 7 -2 -68 clearly show that the petitioner's appeal had also earlier been allowed before proceedings to hold fresh inquiry were started against the petitioner. The grievance that the impugned inquiry was held against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal must be rejected.