AJAY JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 15th of March, 2016 (Annex.5) as well as order of Appellate Authority dated 8th of February, 2017 (Annex.7). By its order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of Disciplinary Authority, who held that the charges brought against the petitioner were proved and inflicted punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner.

(2.) The facts, relevant for disposal of present petition, are that the petitioner, who was appointed as Excise Inspector in the respondent department vide order dated 08.05.2006, was served a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 levelling four charges against him including that despite direction for taking extra care and conducting raids in connection with spurious liquor he was negligent in discharging his duties and an incident took place in Pali on 21.01.2011 taking lives of some people. The act of the petitioner in not discharging duties properly was branded as of gross negligence. Another charge related with not inspecting the areas timely and due to that methyl alcohol was served in Pali and the incident happened. It was also a charge against him that he did not stay in District Pali and Bali, where he was posted during the year 2010-11 and if the petitioner would have stayed and inspected the areas diligently, then strict actions could been taken against erring persons and as such he was responsible for the said act of negligence. Reply to the charge sheet was submitted by petitioner denying all the charges levelled against him and it was stated that he was quite vigilant and had made efforts to inform the public on loud speakers about spurious liquor and the incident that happened in Jodhpur. It was averred in the reply that on 21.01.2011, he was assigned special duty of escorting Excise Minister from Sendra to Circuit House, Jodhpur, and even during duty he was in contact with his subordinates and instructed them to keep a check on the situation. While denying the charge that raids were not conducted, he mentioned that 42 cases were registered during 2010-11 and out of them in 22 cases he was personally present and registered the same. Denying the charge of not discharging duties properly, it is stated in the reply that total 1198 shops of liquor were inspected by him and in 12 shops deficiencies were found in respect of which cases were registered as such he discharged his duties well. He emphasized that during his tenure total 195 inspections were conducted and night stays at Pali and Bali were totaling to 138.

(3.) After joint enquiry in the matter, Enquiry Officer gave a positive finding in favour of petitioner that he was not at all guilty of the charges leveled against him rather was quite vigilant and discharged his duties sincerely with dedication. Enquiry report stated that the petitioner conducted sufficient raids and on the date of incident he was on special duty of escorting the Excise Minister from Sendra to Circuit House, Jodhpur and accordingly he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer.