Mohd. Zakir vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order Annexure 10 by which he was dismissed from service from the post of Store Munshi. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given proper opportunity to face the allegation of embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 6, 530/-. The legality of the order Annexure 10 has been challenged on a number of grounds. Mr. Udawat submits that the petitioner did not participate in the inquiries. He does not dispute that the order Annx. 10 does not contain the details of the material which might have been taken into consideration by the Chief Engineer passing that order. The order Aunexure 10 cannot be said to be a speaking order. What has been mentioned therein is that the authority passing the order has taken into consideration the charge-sheet, the statement of allegation and the explanation of the concerned employees. Who were those concerned employees and what was their explanation, cannot be deduced from reading this order. The order does not speak of consideration of the explanation filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to deal with other points raised by the petitioner and think it proper to decide the writ petition on this point alone that the order Annexure 10 is not a speaking order.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order Annexure 10 is set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential reliefs in view of this order. It will, however, be open to the concerned authorities to proceed against the petitioner with regard to this matter an accordance with law.