BABU LAL NAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the enquiry report dated 8.8.1990 (Annexure-3) and subsequent orders contained in Annexures 36, 37 and 39, by which the petitioner's services have been terminated and appeal etc. have been rejected.

(2.) The factual gamut of the case, reveals that petitioner was working as a Store Munshi in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project at Banswara and on 19.9.1994, twenty- four Injector Assemblies were found missing from the Store, of which the petitioner was the Incharge. Petitioner lodged a report to the competent authority and on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged. However, after investigation, it appears that the respondents authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible and was involved in the theft of twenty-four injectors and accordingly the concerned authority issued a Memorandum of Charges, contained in Annexure 7 to this petition, on 24.9.1986. Petitioner submitted its reply on 9.10.1986 (Annexure 8). The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and the decision was taken to hold a regular enquiry against him. After completing the inquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 8.8.1990 (Annexure 32), by which the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The competent authority issued a show cause notice on 7.12.1990 to the petitioner and petitioner submitted his reply on 25.10.1990 (Annexure 35). After considering the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner, the Competent Authority passed the order of punishment, i.e. removal from service, vide order dated 29.5.1991 contained in Annexure 36 to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred the appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected the same vide order dated 17.5.1984 (Annexure 39). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Basti Chand Bhansali has raised the preliminary issue that petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy available to him. As against the order of the appellate authority, a review lies under the Rules and he urged that the petition is not maintainable. No doubt, a party is under an obligation to exhaust the statutory remedies, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 ; A.V. Venketraman Vs. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 and H.B. Gandhi Vs. Gopi Nath, 1992 Suppl(2) SCC 312. But as this case is pending before this Court for several years relegating the petitioner to statutory remedy is not desirable at such a belated stage.