SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 in directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated April 1, 1986, by which the appellants (here in after to be referred to as 'the petitioner') writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner case to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the Governments that he was working so Fitter -II in P.H.E.D. Eorawar in 1986 Since November 15, 1978, he was chosen as Vice -President of Rastriya Nal Mazdoor Sangh, Merta City (Distric Nagaur). The Union presented a charter of demands on October 31, 1985 to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas (respondent No. 2). The demands were not met and the members of the union along with the petitioner resored to strike on November 20, 1985. On assurance by the Executive Engineer, the strike was with -drawn, but nothing came out. The workers again resorted to strike on January 1, 1986. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas came to Merta City on January 1, 1986 to have negotiations with the Union. He was taken to a camp where he was beaten and manhandled. His clothes were torn. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas issued charge -sheet Annexure -5 on January 25, 1986 to the petitioner enlisting four charges of misconduct against him. The petitioner submitted his reply Ex. 6 to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas on February 12, 1986. He denied the allegations made against him and refuted the charges. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas, by his order Ex. 8 dated February 14, 1986, imposed the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order Annexure -8 mainly on the ground that Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was incompetent to hold any inquiry against him as he was the person who was alleged to have been manhandled and beaten by him (petitioner). It was also alleged that no proper inquiry was conducted at all. No evidence was recorded. No opportunity to lead defence was afforded to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the charges against the petitioner were grave and he does not deserve any sympathy from this Court. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come -up in special appeal.

(3.) AT the fore -front of his arguments, it was argued by Mr. Parihar that in the cherge -sheet Ex. 5 and the statement of allegations annexed with it it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had manhandled and beaten the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas and torn his clothes. The charge -sheet was issued by the same Superintending Engineer Mr Om Prakash Vyas. The petitioner, in his reply Ex. 6, categorically denied these charges. He submitted his reply Ex. 6 on February 12, 1986. Soon thereafter, without any lapse of time, the same Superintending Engineer Mr Om Prakash Vyas passed the impugned order Ex. 8 on February 14, 1986 imposition the penalty of dismissal from service on the petition. It was argued that the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was the officer who was alleged to have been manhandled and beaten by the petitioner Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was, therefore, incompetent to hold the inquiry and punish the petitioner. It was argued that a party cannot be a judge of his own cause It was also argued that Ex. 8 does not show that any inquiry was conducted The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas even did not take care to take the reply of the petitioner into consideration before imposing the penalty. Reliance in support of the contention was placed by Mr. Parihar on Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen 1986 (7) Indian Factories and Labour Rennrfs 106 and Arun Chobe v. Union of India : (1984)IILLJ17SC.