S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2474 of 1990. Case: Bal Kishan Garg Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2474 of 1990 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M. Mridul, Sr. Adv. assisted by R.N. Upadhyay, Adv. And For Respondents: C.L. Jain, Adv. |
| Judges | R.P. Vyas, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rule 244(2); Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records), Rules, 1957 - Rules 17 and 177 |
| Citation | RLW 2005 (3) Raj 2047, 2005 (2) WLC 392 |
| Judgement Date | February 16, 2005 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
R.P. Vyas, J.
-
By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13.3.90 (Annexure 7), passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, as well as the notice dated 9.4.85 (Annexure 4), issued by the Collector, Chittorgarh be declared invalid and be quashed, with all consequential benefits.
-
The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Shri Bal Kishan Garg-petitioner was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 25.12.1954. For the first time, vide order dated 10.10.75, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951'). Thereafter, the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was revoked by a subsequent order dated 4.5.77 and the petitioner was taken back in service.
-
For the second time, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement vide order dated 7.4.81, which was challenged by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the Tribunal vide order 28.4.83 and the order of compulsory retirement dated 7.4.81 was quashed and set aside.
-
For the third time, the petitioner was given a notice dated 9.4.85 (Annexure 4) by the Collector, Chittorgarh, informing him that the compulsory retirement is being given to him on the expiry of three months' period from the date of service of the notice.
-
Against the aforesaid notice, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.3.90 (Annexure 7).
-
Being aggrieved by the notice dated 9.4.85 (Annexure 4) and the order of the Tribunal dated 13.3.90 (Annexure 7), the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
-
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 13.7.84, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records), Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1957'). Thereafter, vide order dated 23.5.84, he was reinstated back in service. However, a memorandum dated 27.9.84, issued by the Collector, Chittorgarh, was served upon the petitioner, informing him that the Department has proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 177 of the Rules, 1957 on the basis of the charges set out in the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations. The petitioner sought certain documents from the Department for giving reply to the aforesaid memorandum, charge-sheet and statement of allegations. After receiving the desired documents, he gave reply and denied the allegations.
-
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 17.1.85 (Annexure 11), an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter. But, by a subsequent order dated 12.12.86 (Annex. 12), the inquiry initiated against the petitioner, was dropped. The petitioner's suspension was also revoked and pay for the period of suspension was ordered to be paid to him.
-
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on account of leaving the Headquarters without permission and not participating in the monthly meeting dated 10.11.70, the petitioner was punished by stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 22.4.72.
-
Again, vide order dated 27.3.73 (Annexure 13), the petitioner was given punishment of withholding of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect on the ground that he did not deposit a sum of Rs. 36.18 realized by him on 30.7.70, till 2.10.70. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.4.74 (Annexure 14) also, the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect, on the grounds that his work was unsatisfactory and he was not following the instructions of the Girdawar.
-
Thereafter, vide order dated 28.7.79, the punishment of recorded warning was imposed upon the petitioner on the grounds that he did not fulfill the target of recovery for the year, 1978-79.
-
Sofar as the imposition of punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 23.5.83 is concerned, there is no such order and only a reference of the order dated 29.8.83 (Annexure 15) has been made. This order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of punishment dated 3.12.70 and 11.3.71. By each of these two orders, the punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner, which was reduced to the stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment only with cumulative effect.
-
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of upholding the compulsory retirement on which the reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, are the happenings which occurred prior to the year, 1974, except the punishment of recorded warning dated 28.7.79 which pertains to the year 1978-79. So, according to the learned counsel, the past history of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for...
To continue reading
Request your trial