RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.1.1991 contained in Annexure -2 to the petition, by which the Disciplinary Authority has forfeited 1/5th of the pension of the petitioner for a period of three years.

(2.) PETITIONER , who was working as Tehsildar, retired on 30.10.1987. He was served with a charge -sheet dated 1.6.1988 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958') with the allegation that when he was working as Tehsildar, he had verified a false certificate in favour of one Nopa Ram, on the basis of which he had been allotted the land which was illegal. The petitioner had filed a reply to the said charge -sheet. After holding the full -fledged enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry - report contained in Annexure -Rule 1, by which the enquiry officer found him guilty for favouring said Shri Nopa Ram by verifying the certificate, on the basis of the false verification, said Nopa Ram had been allotted the land which could not have been allotted to him. However, the petitioner was exonerated on the other charge, in which it was alleged that Nopa Ram had been his direct relative as the said charge could not be proved for want of evidence. The competent authority agreed with the enquiry officer and passed the impugned order dated 31.1.1991. hence this writ petition.

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that a person, if aggrieved by some order, must exhaust the statutory remedy as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Virappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. : [1952]1SCR583 ; and H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath, 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC 312. In the instant case, an appeal against the impugned order lies to the Secretary to the Government under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1958 and further a review lies under Rule 34 of the said Rules before His Excellency the Governor of the State. The petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies and approached this Court straight -away. However,looking to the special facts and circumstances of the case, as the matter is pending before this Court for last eight years, it is not desirable at this stage to ask the petitioner to seek the statutory remedies in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. B.P. Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : [1995]1SCR148 , and the matter is heard on merit.