S M INAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has, in this writ petition, challanged the charge-sheet dated 21.06.1974 issued to him by the respondents. THErefore, he has prayed that the impugned charge-sheet, the enquiry initiated in furtherance thereof and the subsequent orders which may be passed in consonance with the charge-sheet, be quashed and set aside. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him on the post of Senior Medical Officer and be given Super Time Scale and the benefits of increments, revision of pay scale, senior scale, etc. from the date on which his juniors had been given. He has also prayed that respondents be directed to assign appropriate seniority to the petitioner.

(2.) BROADLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon on 20.01.1970. Thereafter, he was regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner came to be posted in Government E.S.I. Dispensary, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

(3.) THE respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply to it. A perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and 3 goes to show that the contents of para No. 1 to 5 of the writ petition are not disputed. However, they have not admitted the contents of para No. 6 of the writ petition. Likewise, the contents of para No. 7 and 8 have not been disputed. THE contents of para No. 9 of the writ petition have not been admitted. Further, the contents of para No. 10 and 11 of the writ petition are not disputed. Respondents have stated in the reply that the decision to issue the charge-sheet was taken by the State Government as per the provisions of C.C.A. Rules. It is also stated that the charge-sheet was issued by the State Government after taking decision on the charges which are in respect of judicial custody and absence from duty. Further, the respondents have stated that the proceedings after the charge-sheet could not be taken up because of the stay order granted by the Court on 31.05.1994. THE respondent No. 2 has filed a separate reply to the writ petition, reiterating the facts of the case, as mentioned above. It has been stated in the reply that mere routine signatures on the official record does not mean that the petitioner remained on duty on 22.04.1972. So far as the parawise reply to the writ petition is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has mainly stated that the contents are either not relevant or are not disputed. It has also been stated in the reply that the petitioner is not cooperating with the departmental enquiry and the same is still going on. It has been further stated that merely because lapse of some time, the enquiry cannot be dropped. As regards the ground A to F of the writ petition, it has only stated that they are not admitted and that the petitioner has reiterated the facts mentioned by him in the previous para of the writ petition.