Kapoor Chand Saini, vs The State of Rajasthan

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:-

"(i) the impugned order dated 25.1.94 Annexure/2 be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the respondents be further directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That any other suitable writ, order or direction that may be deemed expedient under the facts and circumstances of the case be issued.

(iii) Cost of the petition be awarded"

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III after passing due selection process w.e.f. 10/01/1987. The petitioner's employment was terminated vide order dated 25/01/1994 which was served upon him on 02/02/1994. The order of termination was on the ground that the petitioner had secured employment on forged degrees/marks-sheets. The respondents issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 10/01/1994 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ''CCA Rules, 1958'') on the aforementioned charges.

However, without conducting any departmental enquiry or adopting the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, the respondents issued a questionnaire to the petitioner dt.12/01/1994 without adopting any further procedure in accordance with law and in pursuance of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated

25/01/1994.

A reply was filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner obtained B.Ed. Degree by unfair means and forgery. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner had made some changes in the marks-sheet and the difference was found in the marks mentioned in the copy of the marks-sheet submitted by the petitioner and that in the University. It was further submitted that as per record of the University, the petitioner was declared fail whereas in his marks-sheet of B.Ed., the petitioner has shown himself to be pass. The respondents also stated that the proceedings adopted were lawful and the action taken was strictly in accordance with law.

This Court is of the opinion that the order impugned dt.25/01/1994 has been passed without conducting the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules,1958.

In the name of the enquiry report, there is only one questionnaire which is on record and no other enquiry report has been placed or mentioned by the respondents.

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner refuted all the charges levelled by the respondents and denied each one of them categorically while stating that his marks-sheet was lawful and correct.

This Court is of the opinion that such incomplete proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, after serving the memorandum of charges, is completely illegal and cannot be permissible in law. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to quash the impugned order dt.25/01/1994 (Ann.2). The respondents are directed to re-initiate the proceedings strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of order of this Court, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and adopting the due process of law. The petitioner be reinstated but all benefits shall accrue to him only after the disciplinary authority passes fresh order after adopting the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 in pursuance of the memorandum of charges dt.10/01/1994 (Ann.3) to the writ petition. It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the respondents to pass a lawful order strictly in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of with the observations/directions indicated above.