RAJENDRA KUMAR BHOLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order impugned dt. 27.09.2001 (Annexure -16) passed by His Excellency the Governor rejecting the petitioner's review petition filed against the order dt. 10.08.1998 as time barred, so also the order passed by Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur dt. 10.08.1998 (Annexure -9) whereby the petitioner was removed from service.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in the Ground Water Department after due selection through R.P.S.C. And he joined the duties on 22.08.1985. Initially the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur and worked till April, 1986 then he was transferred to Kota Division at Kota. He worked independently as Geo -Physist for Electrical Resistivity Survey in four districts i.e. Kota, Jhalawar, Sawai Madhopur and Tonk to explore point of tube well for water supply scheme. In the year 1987, the petitioner became eligible for promotion as Jr. Geophysicist but he was transferred in the year 1989 from Kota to Nagaur. Thereafter, in the year 1991 when a post of Technical Assistant became available then so many requests were made to the Chief Engineern but, he was not given posting at Kota. The Chief Engineer kept the post vacat for three years ignoring the prayer of the petitioner to post him at Kota. In the year 1992, the petitioner was transferred again to Pali but at Pali no work was allotted any work and petitioner continued there without any work because he was expert in geophysicist. In the year 1992, due to harassment of the respondents, he suffered so many diseases and due to medical reasons he remained on medical leave for three years. Thereafter when he went to Pali to join the duties and produced all the medical certificates, which were earlier sent through post from time to time to the Chief Engineer but Senior Hydrogeologist Mr. Rajendra Sharma kept those medical certificates with him and accepted the joining but did not give any receipt and refused the petitioner to sign in the attendance register after 24.04.1996.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that in all two charge -sheets were issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of C.C.A. Rules, 1958 by the respondent Department. The first charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules for the alleged misconduct on 14.06.1995 vide Annexure -1 and second charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1997 under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules on 12.02.1997. It is specifically stated by the petitioner that the respondents have proceeded to hold an enquiry in pursuance of the first charge -sheet dt. 14.06.1995 in which four charges were levelled against the petitioner that he remained willful absent from duties without proper intimation in the year 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. Further, it was alleged that he has violated the provisions of GF and AF Rules and disobeyed the orders of the superiors.