High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 02 RAJ CK 0037

Girraj Prasad Sunar vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 27 February 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2521 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 377 words

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the charge sheet dated 23rd January, 2013. It is stated that earlier petitioner was punished for recovery without service of charge sheet and enquiry. The challenge to the aforesaid order was made by maintaining a writ petition and interim order was passed by this Court. The respondents, however, filed reply indicating that charge of the petitioner was similar to other co-employee, thus enquiry report in the case of co-employee was taken as basis to pass order of punishment. This Court did not vacate interim order as punishment order was not passed after observing Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "CCA Rules"). The respondents have now issued charge sheet following the rules and has been questioned by the petitioner. It is precisely on the ground that earlier charge was not found proved in the enquiry, thus fresh charge sheet cannot be issued.

2.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and unable to accept arguments aforesaid because in first writ petition, challenge to the order of punishment was made on the ground that procedure required for an order of punishment was not followed as otherwise provided under the CCA Rules. The stay order was passed on the aforesaid pretext. Now when the respondents have followed the Rules and charge sheet has been issued under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, the petitioner has again challenged it thereby petitioner wants to defer enquiry by either way. At the first instance, when punishment order was passed without following CCA Rules, a writ petition was filed and interim order is passed and now when Rules are followed, issues are raised in reference to the reply in earlier writ petition. The aforesaid shows conduct of the petitioner, who do not want to face enquiry. The writ petition has been filed even without submitting reply to the charge sheet.

3.

Looking to the facts aforesaid and background given above, no ground is made out to challenge charge sheet where the petitioner would be having opportunity of hearing as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules, which was earlier not provided. The writ petition thus cannot be entertained, hence, it is dismissed so as the stay application.