LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-88

GOPAL SINGH SISODIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On February 08, 2017
Gopal Singh Sisodia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:-

(2.) The facts noted in this writ petition by this court are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector in Cooperative Department on 18.01.1965 and was thereafter promoted as Inspector Executive in 1979. The petitioner was then sent on deputation in the year 1983 to the Cooperative Bank as Assistant Executive Officer (Marketing). The petitioner was served upon a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of C.C.A. Rules, 1958. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 29.07.1993 holding the petitioner guilty for the charges. The disciplinary Authority thus, dismissed the petitioner vide order dated 14.1994.

(3.) The respondents filed a reply and denied any document being sought during the enquiry. As per the respondents, the documents were sought only after the enquiry report was sent and thus, such averment by the petitioner was merely after thought. As per the respondents, the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner after giving him due opportunity but since he did not submit any reply, the enquiry proceeded accordingly against the petitioner. The respondents stated that 33 dates were given at the time of enquiry proceedings and thus, the petitioner had ample opportunities to defend himself. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had initiated another proceedings under Sec. 74(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and thereby imposed penalty to recover the amount lost and such penalty was already implemented vide judgment dated 12.09.1988, 10.10.1990 and 28.05.1987. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the same charges became the foundation of proceedings under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 and the same authority which had passed the order under the Sec. 74 was in fact appointed the Enquiry Officer. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Arujun Chaubey Vs. Union of India & Ors. [reported in AIR 1984 SC 1356].