KALULAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) THE petitioner Kalulal, working as District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, was charge -sheeted on certain allegations on 18.2.85 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958). Copy of charge -sheet is attached as Annex. 5 to the writ petition. After completing certain formalities, an enquiry officer was appointed as required under the rules. A report was submitted by the enquiry officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 4.9.85. In the report, submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and against which show cause notice, the petitioner had made a representation. The objection of the petitioner made in the representation was accepted. It was the case of the petitioner in the representation that as a matter of act, one Chetram, an other officer, was responsible, for the irregularities, if at all if there was any lapse but not the petitioner. On the representation having been accepted, fresh order for holding the enquiry was passed for initiating a joint enquiry against the petitioner and the said Shri Chetram Kundala as is clear from the contents of Annex. 7. It is alleged and is also not denied that in the fresh joint enquiry ordered by the competent authority, the petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer but the other delinquent Shri Chetram was found guilty to some extent. Even though, the enquiry report was submitted in the year, 1988, the petitioner was not communicated result of the enquiry. With the result, the petitioner had to make a representation for deciding his fate in regard to the enquiry which had since been finalised. After more than four years of the submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner received a letter Annex.9 dt. 22nd September, 1992 issued by the competent authority ordering a denovo enquiry.

(3.) IN the written statement, filed by the respondents, the facts are not disputed. Para 9 of the writ petition where the petitioner had averred that he was exonerated by the enquiry officer also stands admitted. It is stated in para 13, of the reply that payment of increments, relating to the period of suspension and during pendency of the enquiry, shall be decided only on completion of the enquiry. However, in regard to with - holding of the promotion, it has been stated in the written statement that DPC did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion in the year 1986 -87 and 1987 -88, but for the next ensuing years, his name had been considered and recommendations have been kept in sealed cover.