MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is serving as a Warder in the Central Jail, Udaipur has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter -alia that the petitioner -appellant was appointed as Warden on two years probation after his selection by the Selection Committee in July, 1977. According to the petitioner - appellant, during the course of his employment his performance had been satisfactory. The services of the petitioner -appellant were terminated vide office order dated 7.7.1989 (Annexure -1). The impugned order was not received by the petitioner -appellant. The petitioner -appellant was ordered to be discharged under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (here -in - after referred to as the 1966 Rules). During the period of probation the petitioner -appellant's performance was verified to be good. The petitioner -appellant was discharged from service on the ground that he was convicted by the Children's Court, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 377 and 341 of the I.P.C. According to the petitioner -appellant his services could be terminated under Rule 29 of the 1966 Rules only when it was found that his performance during probation period was not satisfactory. The petitioner -appellant's services have been terminated by way of punishment. He ought to have been given charge -sheet or at least a show cause notice. It was prayed by the petitioner -plaintiff that his appeal be accepted and the impugned order terminating his services be quashed.

(2.) IN view of the non -disclosure of the fact in the application form regarding the past conviction of the petitioner - appellant when he was minor he was convicted in respect of an offence Under Section 377 and 341 I.P.C. by the Children's Court prior to his joining the service, the respondents had directed termination of his service from the department on 7.7.89. The petitioner challenged this impugned order of termination by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur and the learned Tribunal vide it's Orders dated 24th July 1990 set -aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from service and the appeal was consequently allowed.

(3.) IT has been further contended by the petitioner that since he was not re -instead in service pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the learned tribunal, he was left with no option but to seek appropriate directions against the respondents by way of S.B.C. W.P. No. 2683/91, which was decided by this Court vide it's orders dt. 29th July' 91. This Court while allowing the writ petition with cost, directed the respondents to implement the order of the learned tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order with a further direction that the Government should take suitable action against the guilty officials, who were found responsible for their lapse in not having implemented the orders of the learned tribunal dt. 24.7.90.