MOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Moola Ram Vaishnaw had been working as a Teacher Grade III in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan (the respondent No. l ). In 1965 his services were terminated, under the orders passed by the District Education Officer (the Inspector of Schools), Jodh-pur (the respondent No. 2), on the ground that he remained absent from his duty with effect from 5. 51. 65 for about three years. He challenged the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition which was registered in this Court as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1044/68. THE writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11. 11. 71 and the order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 2 was set aside on the ground that no enquiry had been held against the petitioner, who was not given a show cause notice and as such the order of dismissal was against the rules and against Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was, however, observed that the Government would be free to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law. THE petitioner was thus re-instated in service with effect from 24. 1. 1972. Two charge-sheets both dated 232. 1973 were served on the petitioner: one in regard to the misconduct prior to 24. 1. 1972 and the other relating to the mis-conduct after that date. THE first charge-sheet contained three charges. THEy were that while he was posted as an Assistant Teacher in the Government School, Shergarh, he remained absent from his duty with effect from 5. 1. 1. 65 without getting his leave sanctioned; that during the period of his posting in that school, he had been violating the instruction issued by the department; and that during that period he had been levelling false charges against the authorities and had been used objectionable language against them. THE second charge-sheet related to five instances of mis-conduct. THEy were that while working as an Assistant Teacher in Govt. School, Bala, he had left the head quarters and remained absent from his duty without getting his leave sanctioned from the Head Master; that when the Inspector of Schools asked his explanation in this regard, instead of giving of explanation thereto, he levelled false charges against others; that he filed a false complaint against the Head Master of the said school before the Inspector of Schools stating that the Head Master had abused him; that he had not complied with the instructions issued by the department but had flouted them, and that he remained absent from his duty with effect from 10. 5. 72 without getting his leave sanctioned. THE petitioner denied the charges against him in both these charge-sheets and Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry. THE petitioner did not participate in the enquiry inspire of various letters written to him by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry had to be adjourned from time to time, and ultimately the Enquiry Officer had to proceed ex-parte. THE petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. ' 178/78, challenging, inter-alia, the enquiry and charge-sheets. THE said writ petition was contested but at the time of hearing, on the learned Govt. Advocate making a statement that enquiry against the petitioner would be completed within a period of two months, the petitioner did not press the petition which was dismissed as such. THE Enquiry Officer after recording the remaining evidence produced by the department, held that all the three charges of first charge-sheet and five charges of second charge-sheet stood established against the petitioner. He submitted his report to the respondent No. 2, who vide notice dated 20. 1. 80 (Ex. 17) intimated the petitioner that he had carefully considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and was of the opinion that the services of the petitioner should be terminated forthwith and his absence from duty for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72 and from 10. 5. 72 to Feb. , 1979 be treated as absence without leave and directed the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. A copy of the Enquiry Report was enclosed along with the above said notice.

(2.) INSTEAD of sending reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 447/80. In that Writ Petition he challenged notice Ex. 17 and the enquiry proceedings. Vide order dated 5. 9. 80 (Ex. 18), the Writ Petition was allowed only to the extent that the petitioner was held entitled to receive all the emoluments from the respondent for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72 but the Writ Petition in ail other respects was dismissed.

(3.) IT has next been contended that the enquiry was an ex-parte one and it violated the principle of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was not given to the pettioner to defend him during enquiry. As noted above, the petitioner had tiled Writ Petition No. 447/80, challenging the enquiry proceedings as well as the show cause notice Ex. 17 and the Writ Petition was dismissed in all respects except that the petitioner was held entitled to the payment of arrears for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72. The validity of the enquiry and notice Ex. 17 was thus up held and the petitioner cannot challenge the same again in this Writ Petition. Even otherwise find from the record that the petitioner did not co-operate with the Enquiry Officer and did not join enquiry proceedings inspite of various opportunities having been given by the Enquiry Officer to him. Even after the dismissal of his Writ Petition No. 178/78 vide order dated 2. 2. 1979 (Ex. 11), the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer had to complete the enquiry against him ex-parte. We, therefore, do not find any ground to hold that the enquiry was held against the principle of natu-ral justice.