RAJENDRA SAHU Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Services, has approached this court by way of this writ petition, while invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon by this court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the charge-sheet dated 20.11.2015 (Annex.8) and the communication/order dated 07.06.2017 (Annex.12), whereby the petitioner herein was held guilty in an enquiry instituted against him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') and was handed down a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

(2.) Though numerous other previous charge-sheets, instances of disciplinary action against the petitioner are referred in the writ petition, but the order dated 07.06.2017, which is assailed in this writ petition is founded on the memorandum No.R/V/JD/DE-5/2015/451 dated 20.11.2015 (Annex.8), which was served upon the petitioner herein under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The sole charge as framed by the Hon'ble the Enquiry Judge against the petitioner, which formed the foundation of the enquiry is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply/representation against the memorandum, whereby he denied the charges attributed to him and claimed exoneration. He took a plea that the Judicial Magistrate's court at Dudu was functioning in a dilapidated building and water used to seep into it during rains. The charge that the petitioner intentionally avoided transmission of the release order of the accused Kayyum to the Sub-Jail Sambhar Lake by a special messenger was refuted and it was mentioned that he requested the Assistant Nazir to send any Class-IV staff member to the Sub-Jail with the release order. The Nazir submitted a written report expressing his inability to do so, assigning a reason that all the staff members including Class-IV employees of the court were engaged in protecting the court files and record, which were at a risk because of seepage of water. In his representation dated 08.01.2006, the petitioner denied the fact that the accused had to remain in jail unnecessarily because the release order was sent by post. It was mentioned that the High Court granted bail to the accused vide order dated 15.07.2010, but the documents for attestation of bail bonds were submitted before the court as late as on 25.08.2010.