RAM KISHOR MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pitted against the colossal power of the State, the petitioner has sought the refuge of this Court for a number of reliefs. He has not just challenged the order dated 16.07.1994 whereby his pay-scale was suddenly reduced, not just challenged the order dated 11.08.1994 whereby the recovery order was passed, but most importantly he has challenged the suspension order dated 21.07.1994, the charge-sheet dated 25.07.1994, the dismissal order dated 27.04.1995 and ultimately, the order dated 01.05.1995 whereby the dismissal order was confirmed.

(2.) This case has had a chequered history which is as under :- According to the petitioner, on 20.01.1979, he was appointed as a Welfare Officer in the Central Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Board', for short). He continued to work on the said post till 04.03.1986. Vide order dated 05.03.1986, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Project Officer and continued to hold the said post till 01.11.1988. In November, 1988 he was sent on deputation from the Central Board to the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred as 'the State Board', for short) as the Secretary of the State Board. Vide order dated 16.02.1991, he was absorbed as the Secretary of the State Board in the pay-scale of Rs.3,000- 4,500/-. This absorption was done after due consultation with the Central Board. From 1991 till 1993, the petitioner discharged his functions satisfactorily. There were no complaints about his work. However, according to him, after the appointment of respondent No.6, Smt. Sariya Khan, on 26.03.1993, as the Chairperson of the State Board, troubles began for him. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 31.03.1993, the State empowered the Secretary to work as the Treasurer of the State Board. Thus, after 31.03.1993, the petitioner was working both as the Secretary and as the Treasurer of the State Board. During his tenure as the Treasurer, Smt. Sariya Khan wanted the petitioner to approve grant of one voluntary organization, namely Ravindra Tagore Vidhyala Samiti situated in Rawatsar, Distt. Ganganagar for the establishment of the Family Counseling Centre. However, as there were complaints against the said voluntary organization for having misused the grant given earlier by the State Board, the petitioner refused to tow her line. Because of his refusal, Smt. Sariya Khan started bearing a grudge against him. Thus, began his victimization. On 31.03.1994, Smt. Sariya Khan sought six explanations in a single day from the petitioner. These explanations were offered by him vide his reply dated 25.05.1994. Consequently, vide order dated 16.07.1994, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner's pay-scale was suddenly reduced from Rs.3000-4500/- to Rs.2500-4250/-. On 21.07.1994, the petitioner was suspended; on 11.08.1994 an order of recovery of Rs.49,773/- was passed. Since the petitioner was suspended and since subsistence allowances was being paid, surprisingly, the order dated 11.08.1994 directed the recovery from his subsistence allowances. Lastly, on 25.07.1994, the petitioner was given a memo of charge-sheet containing eight charges. These charges related either to the petitioner's recommendation for grant of money to different institutions, or for retaining files by him. On 06.08.1994, while submitting his interim reply, the petitioner reserved his right to file a detailed reply. According to the charge-sheet, the Board wanted to rely upon fifty-seven documents. On 19.08.1994, the petitioner requested the State Board to give him copies of the documents as the copies of the said documents were not given to him along with the charge-sheet. Vide letter dated 07.09.1994, the respondents gave copies of only forty documents out of fifty-seven documents relied upon by them for the purpose of carrying out the departmental inquiry. Since only some documents had been supplied, while the others were retained, vide letter dated 16.09.1994, the petitioner clearly pointed out that complete set of documents has not been supplied to him. He further pointed out that even the right to inspect the remaining documents has not been given to him. In reply to the petitioner's letter dated 16.09.1994, vide letter dated 20.09.1994, petitioner was informed that almost all documents have already been given to him. Therefore, he was directed to submit his detailed reply by 27.09.1994. But even before the petitioner could submit his detailed reply, vide order dated 20.09.1994, the State Board appointed an inquiry officer. Again, vide letter dated 29.09.1994, the petitioner pointed out that copies of certain documents had yet to be supplied to him. He also requested that he should be permitted to engage the service of a legal practitioner in order to plead his case before the inquiry officer. However, the State Board did not respond to the said request. The inquiry commenced on 14.10.1994. However, according to the petitioner, he never received any intimation about the commencement of the said inquiry. Similarly, according to him, he never received any information about the next date, namely 20.10.1994. But he did receive information, through a public notice published in the local newspaper, that the inquiry is scheduled to be held on 15.11.1994. But due to his own illness, he requested that the inquiry be postponed. He submitted a medical certificate showing the fact that he was not keeping well. But notwithstanding his request, the inquiry officer decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. On 28.11.1994, the petitioner submitted an application for setting aside the exparte order. But the said application was never dealt with by the inquiry officer. Thus, the proceedings continued to be ex-parte. Even on the next date i.e. 03.12.1994, due to the illness of his wife, the petitioner again requested for the adjournment of the inquiry proceeding. Upon his request, the inquiry was postponed till 12.12.1994. But, as the petitioner again fell ill on 12.12.1994, he again requested for adjournment of the inquiry proceeding. Again he submitted a medical certificate showing the fact that he is ill. Despite his request, the statements of two witnesses, namely Nanak Chand and Hanuman Singh were recorded by the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer also noted that the petitioner shall not be informed about the future dates of the inquiry and it is upto him to find out the future dates. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had no notice of the future dates. Moreover, whenever he did attend the inquiry on the future dates, he was not permitted to participate or to cross- examine the witness as he was orally told that the proceeding is ex-parte. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 17.12.1994, the Department had completed the deposition of its witnesses. After the witnesses of the Department were examined, the proceedings were closed. According to the order-sheet dated 17.12.1994, the inquiry officer clearly recorded that"since the Department has completed its evidence, the inquiry report shall be prepared and submitted". Vide notice dated 25.03.1995, the petitioner was informed that the inquiry has been completed; he was given a copy of the inquiry report. However, as the inquiry had proceeded ex-parte, vide letter dated 10.04.1995, the petitioner raised his objections and clearly pointed out that the inquiry report was not accompanied by the statements of eleven witnesses and sixty documents on which the inquiry officer had relied upon while giving his finding. He, therefore, requested that the statement of eleven witnesses and the copies of sixty documents should be furnished to him. Despite his request, the State Board did not accede to the said request. Therefore, on 19.04.1995, in the absence of the complete record, the petitioner filed the reply. On 05.01.1995, the State Board was informed that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was over. Vide resolution dated 05.01.1995, the Board authorised the Chairperson to take necessary action against the petitioner after due consultation with the inquiry officer and the Central Board. However, without consulting the Central Board, vide order dated 27.04.1995, the Chairperson dismissed the petitioner from the service. On 01.05.1995, the said order was placed before the State Board for confirmation. The State Board confirmed the dismissal order dated 27.04.1995. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. Vide order dated 22.08.1996, this Court had dismissed the writ petition ostensibly on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the notification dated 20.04.1987, service matters of the Central Board were amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to this Court, since the petitioner has arrayed the Central Board as a respondent party, he had an alternate remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, this petition was deemed to be not maintainable. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this Court. Vide judgment dated 15th September, 2001, the learned Division Bench not only quashed and set aside the order dated 22.08.1996, but also set aside the order of dismissal passed by the State Board. Since the Board was aggrieved by the said judgment, it filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 18.02.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment dated 15th September, 2001 directed that "the writ petition may be taken up for hearing by the learned Single Bench on merits, who shall examine the legality of the order of dismissal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law." Hence, this petition has travelled back to this Court.

(3.) Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel for the State Board, has raised two preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of this petition. Firstly, according to the learned counsel, the State Board is neither a "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor "an instrumentality of the State" within Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, the State Board is merely an agency of the Central Board. But, it does not have an independent existence. Thus, according to him while the Central Board, the master in this case, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction, the State Board, the agent in this case, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.