CW/2798/2002 of RAMESH CHANDRA Vs STATE and ORS on 23 September 2002

Conclusion

:: ORDER ::

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2798/2002. Ramesh Chandra Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors...

Date of Order

:::: 23[rd ] September, 2014.

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Appearance:

Mr. Sunil Ranwah for Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner.Mr. S.M. Toshniwal, Govt. Counsel, for the respondent-State.

- -

BY THE COURT:

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on26.07.2002 with the following prayers:- “Hence, it is prayed that the writ petitionfiled by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and bya writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, orderor direction, the impugned order dated 8.7.2002(Annex.6) may be quashed and set aside.

Any other appropriate order or directionwhich this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper inthe facts and circumstances of this case may bepassed in favour of the petitioner.

Costs of the writ petition may kindly beawarded to the petitioner.”

2. In the inquiry held under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan CivilServices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('theRules of 1958'), by an order Annexure-6 dated 08.07.2002 passedby the respondent Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,Banswara, a sum of Rs.41,400/- was sought to be recovered fromthe petitioner who was working as Junior Engineer in therespondent Department pertaining to the year 1997-98. Theinquiry was held under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 on thecharge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-1 dated08.08.2000 levelling the allegation against him that in the droughtrelief works undertaken by the State Government in the SamvatYear 2043-44 at Vagh Talab, Faifar Talab, Sher Ki Rail Talab andAmbapada Talab, excess construction material was collected atthe sites in question which could not be utilised in execution ofworks and, therefore, the financial loss was caused to therespondent – State on account of negligence on the part of thepetitioner who was working as Junior Engineer in the respondentDepartment.

3. The petitioner has furnished his explanation vide Annexure-2 dated 11.09.2000 before the learned Executive Engineer,Irrigation Division, Banswara. It was submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that for the aforesaid works undertaken during thedrought period, the material in question was purchased by oneShri Kanhaiya Lal, another Junior Engineer of the Department atthe relevant point of time and, therefore, he was not theresponsible person for the works and purchases in question. Thesaid explanation furnished by the petitioner was not considered bythe Disciplinary Authority and he rejected the same videAnnexure-4 dated 06.05.2002. However, the punishment ofstoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effectwas imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orderAnnexure-4 dated 06.05.2002, the petitioner preferred an appealvide Annexurre-5 dated 08.07.2002 before the Chief Engineer,Irrigation Department, Jaipur, the Appellate Authority and who wasexpected to decide the said appeal of the petitioner. It appearsthat on the basis of the communication dated 20.06.2002 of theAdditional Chief Engineer, which was written in prior point of timeof decision of the appeal, the respondent Executive Engineer,Irrigation Division, Banswara had issued the impugned orderAnnexure-6 dated 08.07.2002, the date coincides with the date offiling the appeal aforesaid by the petitioner and rejecting theexplanation, recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,400/- was sought tobe made in three installments by deducting one-third of the salaryand the petitioner was directed take receipt of the same.Aggrieved by the said order Annexure-6 dated 08.07.2002, the

present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. While issuing notices in the matter, a co-ordinate bench ofthis Court on 08.08.2002 had granted the interim order in favour ofthe petitioner staying the operation of the impugned order dated08.07.2002 (Annex. 6).

5. On being served, the respondents have filed a detailed replyto the writ petition and have disputed the averments made by thepetitioner in the writ petition and have justified the impugned orderAnnexure-6 dated 08.07.2002 on the aforesaid ground that thefinancial loss has been caused to the respondent-State onaccount of negligence of the petitioner, who at the relevant point oftime was working as Junior Engineer, in purchasing the excessconstruction materials which were lying at the sites in questionwithout any utilisation.

6. No supporting documents have been filed with the reply tothe writ petition by the respondent-State.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties andhaving perused the record of the case, this Court is satisfied thatthe fate of the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 08.07.2002 by passing appropriate order by the respondentAppellate Authority still has not been placed on record by therespondents. The case of the petitioner is that even after passingof 12 years, the respondents have not been in a position toproduce the copy of the order showing the fate of the appeal filed

by the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 08.07.2002 but it wasfairly conceded on behalf of the respondents that the Annexure-6dated 08.07.2002 was passed on the basis of the communicationdated 20.06.2002 of the Additional Chief Engineer, which is priorin time of filing the appeal by the petitioner and by which, recoveryof an amount of Rs.41,400/- was directed in three installments bydeducting one-third salary of the petitioner.

8. A bare perusal of the impugned order Annexure-6 dated08.07.2002 shows that the explanation or the contentions soughtto be raised in the memo of appeal have not been considered bythe respondent authorities and passing of the impugned orderAnnexure-6 dated 08.07.2002 coincides with the date of appealvide Annexure-5 dated 08.07.2002 filed against the penalty orderdated 06.05.2002. Apparently, the order Annexure-6 passed on08.07.2002 is not the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioneragainst the penalty order Annexure-4 dated 06.05.2002 passed bythe Executive Engineer.

9. In view of the above circumstances, it is very difficult for thisCourt even to know whether the appeal filed by the petitionagainst the penalty order Annexure dated 06.05.2002 has notbeen decided on merits or not but the since the impugnedrecovery order Annexure-6 dated 08.07.2002 has been passedwithout touching or deciding the explanation or appeal of thepetitioner and no reasons have been recorded in the impugned

recovery order but it appears that the same has been passedmerely on the basis of communication dated 20.06.2002 of theAdditional Chief Engineer which communication has not beenproduced on record by either of the parties, therefore, it isconcluded that the respondents have not paid any heed to theexplanation of the petitioner at any stage so far. In thesecircumstances, the impugned recovery order Annexure-6 dated08.07.2002 is unsustainable in the eye of law and this writ petitiondeserves to be allowed.

10. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition isallowed. The impugned recovery order Annexure-6 dated08.07.2002 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Acopy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

/Mohan// H-1 /