VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was initially recruited as Junior Engineer in 1959 in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (now Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited) was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1960, Executive Engineer in the year 1970 and as Superintending Engineer in the year 1979 and is aggrieved against the order dated 24. 6. 1989 (Annex. 10) by which order he was compulsorily retired from service of the said Board.
(2.) THE petitioner is governed under the Regulations of 1962 called Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 and was charge-sheeted on 11. 3. 1985 by the Secretary of the Board for the proposed enquiry under Regulation 7 on the statement of charges as Annex. 1. During the pendency of the charge-sheet dated 11. 3. 1985, the petitioner was also issued a separate memorandum dated 25. 6. 1985 about telegram Annex. 2 whereby instructions were issued that the secret letter containing charges was to be issued to the petitioner and, therefore, he would remain in the office. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when such letter was received, it was not closed or sealed and he had taken objection to that respect which was considered to be insubordination and, therefore, another memo was also issued to him vide Annex. 3 on he ground that he had refused to accept the service and his refusal was considered as a gross misconduct. He was asked to receive the charge-sheet from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Udaipur Zone. The petitioner had questioned the issuing of charge-sheet before the authorities and asked for inspection of record etc. as stated by him in the petition. He had also sought permission to obtain the copies and the documents and to engage the lawyer in view of technical and legal matter involved. His request for engaging the lawyer was rejected. The enquiry officer had submitted his report on 31. 5. 1989. Ultimately the Board had taken a decision on 23. 6. 1989 to compulsory retire the petitioner and he was retired vide order dated 24. 6. 1989 (Annex. 10 ). The petitioner challenges the order Annex. 10 on the grounds; (1) that the was not issued a show cause notice containing the proposal to the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and that he was not given a copy of the enquiry report as well; (2) the petitioner states that he was Secretary of the Association called Electricity Board Engineers Association from 1970 to 1975. He was elected as President in the year 1982 and was still the President while he was charge-sheeted and for the reason that he had exposed to cause of the fellow engineers which had caused annoyance to the authorities specially to Shri R. C. Dave Chairman of the Board. For the activities of the association, the petitioner had been victimized. He had given certain instances where the association had been taking up the matter right up to High Court and agitating other similar matters which according to the petitioner had caused the dis-satisfaction with the respondents; (3) Other grounds on which the order is being challenged is that only authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was the Board of Directors and not the Secretary of the Board and delegation of powers of the Board to the Chairman by administrative order was illegal and statutory Regulation 7 could not be amended or substituted by executive orders; (4) that the charges are vague and there is a pre-determination of mind; (5) refusing to be assisted by a lawyer had infringed the principles assisted by a lawyer had infringed the principles of natural justice; (6) that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner; (7) that there was no application of mind by the competent authority. The petitioner has alleged certain actions showing the bias and victimization and enumerated in Annex-8 of the writ petition right from 1973 to the date of retirement and that the Chairman against whom the allegations were levelled against him in the certain writ petition had taken active part against the petition.
(3.) ANNEX. 9a dated 2. 7. 1980 is the order whereby in the meeting No. 290 held on 10. 6. 1980 the Board had decided to delegate the powers to the Chairman for serving the statement of allegations and charge-sheets for imposing major penalty on the officers as per ANNEX. attached other than Assistant Engineers in whose cases the Board was appointing authority. It is also mentioned, therein, the statement of allegations and charge-sheet for imposing major penalties on the officers in whose cases the Board is appointing authority would be served by/ under the authority of the Chairman in regard to Schedule II. As per ANNEXure-9a, the competent authority to appoint the Superintending Engineer is the Board and the competent authority to suspend is the Chairman in consultation with the Technical Member and for major penalty it is once again the Board who can impose major penalty on the officer above the rank of the A. En. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner had refused to acknowledge and accept the papers of the charge-sheet for the reason that he was of the opinion that the papers were required to be handed over to him by the Head of Department and for such a refusal to accept the charge-sheet could not be considered to be a misconduct. It is also admitted that the Secretary had issued memorandum of charge-sheet under the orders of the Chairman who is said to have been delegated the powers in pursuance of the Board's decision in its 29th meeting dated 20. 6. 1980. Annex. R- 1/3 is a letter of the Special Secretary mentioning therein that the Board had considered the position as in the agenda and after perusing the enquiry report and other relevant record the Board had accepted the report of the enquiry officer. Even though one of the Member of the Board Shri R. C. Dave i. e. Chairman had indicated that since the petitioner as a President of Association had filed a civil writ petition making allegation against him in the High Court of Rajasthan, but he would not like to express his words and he would go with the words of the Members and after detailed discussion the report of the enquiry officer was accepted and for taking action against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 Shri R. C. Dave has also filed his affidavit. He states that the charge-sheet was issued in regard to certain irregularities pointed out by the audit report. While denying the allegations of malafide, he has attached as Annex-R- 2/1 saying that the Chairman had inherent power to exercise the powers vested in any subordinate authority or officer of the Board. Annexure R-2/1 does not help the respondent for the proposition that Chairman had even been delegated the powers of the Board. Annexure-R-2/2 is the agenda only for the meeting 334 dated 20. 3. 1984 of the Board for proposal for issuing the chargesheet to the petitioner. But after going through the other agendas of the meeting in Original register No. 334 dated 20. 3. 1984 even though I find that there are agendas put before the Board in regard to other officers but there is no specific agenda ever put or discussed relating to the petitioner except agenda No. 334. 12 which only says that it is confidential agenda without mentioning any detail or any matter or any discussion. The petitioner is not at all named in agenda No. 334. 12. Chargesheet has been signed by the Secretary. Annex. R-2/4 is the delegation of power to the Chairman for serving statement of allegation and charge-sheet for imposing major penalty as per Appendix attached on the officers other than Assistant Engineer but it limits it only upto the officer of the rank of lower than the Assistant Engineer only. ;