SHANTILAL VASTAVAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 4.6.1980, 27.9.1980, 4.5.1983 and 22.4.1987 contained in Annexs. 1, 9 and 12A to the petition, by which the petitioner has been removed from service and his appeal, revision etc. have been dismissed. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out here that petitioner has sought quashing the impugned order dt. 27.9.1980, which had not been filed by the petitioner and the same had been filed by the respondents alongwith their reply to the petition as Annex. R/9.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a clerk on 1.3.1972 with Rajasthan Mahila Parishad. There has been some break in service and he was again appointed on Jan. 24, 1978 as is evident from Annex. R/1 filed alongwith the reply to the petition. Petitioner proceeded on leave just after filing the application in anticipation of sanction of leave and remained absent from 1.3.1980 to 15.3.1980, 18.3.1980 to 30.3.1980, 1.4.1980 to 30.4.1980 and 1.5.1980 to 4.6.1980 as is evident from the notice dt. 4.6.1980 contained in Annex. 1 to the petition. The said notice/order dated 4.6.1980 was passed by the respondents which provided for removal of the petitioner from service with effect from 1.6.1980. However, the petitioner was asked to file a representation regarding his salary etc. for the period of absence with sufficient proof for reasons to remain absent. Petitioner filed an application/ representation dated 20.6.1980 contained in Annex. 2 to the petition that petitioner being a regular employee could not have been removed without following the procedure of law and asked the respondents to recall the order dt. 4.6.1980 immediately. The said reply was received by the respondent No. 3 on 23.6.1980 and after considering the same, respondent No. 3 issued the notice dt. 30.6.1980 contained in Annex. 3 to the petition to show cause why action should not be taken against petitioner as per the rules as he remained absent without leave for the period stipulated in the notice. Petitioner, instead of filing a reply to the said show cause dated 30.6.1980, filed an appeal on 30.6.1980 contained in Annex. 4 to the petition before respondent No. 2 against the order dt. 4.6.1980. Consequently, respondent No. 3 considered the case in absence of reply to show cause and passed impugned order dt. 27.9.1980 removing petitioner from service and the same was also communicated to the respondents No. 1 and 2. Appeal of the petitioner against order dated 4.6.1980 was rejected on 4.12.1980 vide order dt. 4.12.1980 contained in Annex. 5 to the petition only on the ground that the order dt. 4.6.1980 was merely a show cause notice and the petitioner had been finally removed from service vide order dt. 27.9.1980. As the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the said order, the appeal against the order dt. 4.6.1980 was not maintainable. Petitioner received the order dt. 4.12.1980 and instead of filing an appeal before respondent No. 2 against the order dt. 27.9.1980, he preferred a further appeal to respondent No. 4 on 2.1.1980 contained in Annex. 8 to the petition and the same has been dismissed vide order dt. 4.5.1983 contained in Annex. 9 to the petition. Petitioner preferred further appeal before respondent No. 1 on 29.5.1983 contained in Annex. 10 to the petition and the said appeal was also dismissed by respondent No. 1 after hearing the petitioner vide order dt. 22.4.1987 contained in Annex. 12 -A to the petition only on the ground that the actual effective order of punishment was passed on 27.9.1980 and no appeal had been preferred against the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders.

(3.) S /Shri Trivedi and Jangid have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Undisputedly, services of the petitioner were governed by the non -statutory rules known as the Rajasthan Rules for Payment of Grant in Aid to Non Govt. Educational and cultural Institutions, 1963, hereinafter called 'the Rules 1963' Rule 4(a) of the Rules 1963 provides that the services of the employees shall be governed by the agreement executed with the Head of the Institution. Rule 4(e) provides that the services of the employees can be terminated after affording him reasonable opportunity to show cause. Sub Rule (g) of Rule 4 provides for first appeal against the order of Management Committee to the Director and secondly to the Govt. as per the requirement of Appendix -V to the said rules.