RAMCHANDRA GAUTAM Vs. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ram Chandra Gautam with a prayer that he should be declared to have retired from service with effect from 17.6.1993 on expiry of period of three months from the date of notice dated 17.3.1993 served on him by the respondents under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, "RSR") and enquiry proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority against him pursuant to charge sheet dated 30.7.1993 and the penalty of removal from service awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 28.10.1996 be quashed and set aside as being illegal and unconstitutional and that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner all pensionary benefits and the arrears of the salary for the period of suspension from 2.5.1990 to 25.2.1993 with inerest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was appointed with the respondents on 30.4.1965 on the post of Assistant Inspector. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.5.1990 by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was not served with any charge-sheet for a long period of time and therefore he made representation to the respondents against his continued suspension. The respondents by their order dated 25.2.1993 revoked the order of suspension and directed that the decision with regard to balance salary and allowance etc. for the period of suspension shall be taken after finalization of the disciplinary matter". The petitioner challenged this order by filing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 1719/1993 which was admitted on 27.3.1993. According to petitioner, he out of utter frustration and exasperation submitted application seeking voluntary retirement to the respondents on 14.3.1993 and when nothing was done, he submitted another application on 17.3.1993 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In this application, the petitioner prayed for his voluntary retirement under Rule 224(1) of RSR and submitted that he be granted leave for the period from 14.3.1993 to 14.6.1993 against the earned leave for which he has separately submitted an application to Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ajmer. When nothing.was heard, the petitioner by his letter dated 14.6.1993 informed the respondents that on expiry of period of three months, he would automatically retire from service as envisaged by Rule 244(1) of RSR and would thereafter stop attending his duties. The petitioner however was served with a charge sheet dated 30.7.1993 on the charges that when he was working as Administrator, Jai Mahal Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, he committed irregularities in issuing wrong allotment letters and granting permission for raising unauthorised constructions. The petitioner protested against the issuance of this charge sheet by his application dated 11.1.1994 and submitted that since he already stood retired upon expiry of period of notice of three months, there was no question of any disciplinary enquiry being held against him now in relation to the incident which was older than four years. Even then by way of abundant caution, petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 30.6.1994 and prayed for dropping of the same. The disciplinary autho-rity however by notice dated 10.8.1994 informed the petitioner that Joint Secretary, Cooperative Societies has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and required him to appear before him. This notice was received by wife of the petitioner who at the relevant time had gone to pilgrimage. He by application dated 17.9.1994 requested the enquiry officer for deferring the matter till Dushhera. Petitioner thereafter submitted another representation on 7.10.2004 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, requesting him to drop the disciplinary enquiry. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the enquiry officer submitted his report and the disciplinary authority even though took note of the pendency of this enquiry but since there was no interim order of stay passed by this Court, passed the order of removal on 28.10.1996, which has also been assailed by amending the writ petition. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the present writ petition has been filed with the prayers referred to above.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents.