RAMCHARAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following relief :

(2.) On receiving the order dated 24.6.2011 the petitioner submitted an appeal to the respondent No.1 giving in detail all the facts and also pointed out that the enquiry was wholly uncalled for after the final report had been given in the matter. He also cited that the proceedings had taken inordinately delayed and were not on account of the petitioner. Moreover, he also pointed out that in the said allegations levelled against the petitioner and his superior officers, all the other persons have been exonerated. However, by a cursory order dated 19.10.2011 the Revenue Secretary has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved with the enquiry proceedings conducted on the basis of charge-sheet dated 6.9.2001, enquiry report dated 26.10.2002, suspension order dated 7.9.2007, punishment order dated 24.6.2011 and the appellate order dated 19.10.2011 has preferred instant writ petition before this Court for quashing and setting aside the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment order dated 24.6.2011 by which the petitioner has been removed from service, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Counsel submitted that the entire departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated on the charges for which the ACB case was registered against the petitioner. In the ACB case it has clearly been revealed that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence or any misconduct. Moreover, it has also come on record in the orders passed by the Special Court, Anti Corruption that the orders regarding the disputed land were quasi judicial in nature, and, therefore, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner is with the presumption that there was no order of the Superior Authority dated 7.1987 on record in the 'B' file and since there was no order passed by the Superior Authority, the action taken against the petitioner was illegal and unjustified but it has now come on record very clearly that there was actually an order passed by the then Assistant Settlement Officer Shri K.D. Tripathi and that order was further affirmed by the subsequent Settlement Officer also. Certified copies of these orders however were not made available to the petitioner in-spite of his requests and therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings are wholly baseless and it can be safely said that it is a case of no evidence and it is only on surmises and conjectures that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and the entire edifice of the departmental proceedings being on flimsy grounds, the enquiry and the subsequent punishment order deserve to be quashed and set aside. Counsel submitted that moreover even with regard to the departmental enquiry when the charge levelled against the petitioner is in relation to the orders passed by his Superior Officers, the enquiry ought to have been conducted under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958. On the other hand while all the others have been exonerated of the charges, the petitioner has been punished. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority and the petitioner has been subjected to pick and choose arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. Counsel further submitted that neither the Enquiry officer nor the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority have been able to show as to how the petitioner can be said to have committed any misconduct. Counsel submitted that performing action on the basis of instructions issued by the superior authorities cannot come within the ambit of misconduct under the conduct Rules of 1971. Moreover the order passed by the Superior Authority has not been held to be bad either by the competent court or by any authority. Moreover no departmental action has been taken against the said officer who passed the order which was complied with by the petitioner. Hence it is a case where the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination and it is apparent that the order has been passed without application of mind.