M C GULECHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26. 9. 1992 (Annexure-14) as well as order dated 24. 9. 1993 (Annexure-16) and prayed for consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) ACCORDING to the facts inter-alia narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent Department and he was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Raj as than civil Service (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 vide memorandum of charge-sheet dated 01. 03. 1986 (Annex.-1 ). The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on temporary basis. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer after due selection through Rajasthan Public Service commission vide order dated 31. 10. 1974. in the charge-sheet under memorandum dated 01. 03. 1986 under Rule 16 of the RCS (CCA) Rules it was alleged that the petitioner remained absent from duties w. e. f. 10. 7. 1983. in pursuance of the charge sheets issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed his reply. Thereafter, the civil writ Petition No. 3798/1991 and the same was decided by vide judgment dated 3. 2. 1992. The operative part of the order passed was as follows : &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition, set aside Annexure-5 dated 23rd April 1987 under which the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. I also set aside the order dated 18th February, 1988. The review petition is said to have been dismissed on 18th September 1989. It will, be, however, open for the respondents to proceed from the stage after inquiry report. "

(3.) FURTHER, it is submitted by learned Dy. Govt. Advocate that petitioner remained absent from duties for more than three years and for the same, he was charge-sheeted and thereafter, enquiry was initiated and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, final order was passed while considering his all grounds and contentions. Therefore, upon perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that order impugned is reasoned order and all the grounds taken by the petitioner are properly considered. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.