LAL SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as Executive Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department has filed the instant writ petition seeking a mandums to quash and set aside charge-sheet dt.31.01.2017 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, whereby the Department of Personnel has initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed to discharge him from the enquiry initiated against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was in receipt of memo along with charge-sheet dt.31.01.2017 wherein it was alleged that while the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, at Rajgarh Division District Alwar from 25.10.2007 to 30.06.2008 during his tenure, there was increase in the permissible Reserve Stock Limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lac) to Rs.2,6755733/- and as such the Reserve stock limit was extended twenty seven times. It was alleged that the petitioner by keeping increased stock than the Reserve stock limit, violated Rule 142 and 138 of Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. The department alleged that by violating such Rule the petitioner had committed negligence in discharge of his duty and has committed serious misconduct. The details of allegations were annexed with memo of charge-sheet wherein bifurcation was given of the permissible stock limit and the excess stock than the Reserve stock limit maintained by the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner in charge-sheet memo dt.31.01.2017 is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that after receipt of charge-sheet, he requested the respondents to permit him inspection of record and further to make him available copies of certain documents which he wanted to use for the purpose of filing reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that though he was permitted on 09.03.2017 to inspect certain documents, however he needed five more documents as per his application dt.09.03.2017. The petitioner has alleged that vide letter dt.12.04.2017 (Annex.-3) he was informed that the documents which he demanded, were relevant and as such the petitioner was asked to file his reply within 15 days. The petitioner has pleaded that he made request again by letter dt.24.04.2017 to have inspection of certain documents and the same was rejected vide order dt.17.05.2017 and the petitioner was asked to file his reply by 22.05.2017.