- (1.) It is indeed unfortunate that the enquiry initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of directions of this court itself has been successfully stalled by the petitioner in the present set of writ petitions.
(2.) 23 petitioners came to this Court by way of batch of writ petitions led by Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.475/2012 and batch of 23 writ petitions came to be decided by the coordinate bench of this court on 1.5.2012, a copy of which order has been placed on record as Annex.5.
(3.) The controversy which led to filing of these writ petitions arose because the petitioners' services who were appointed as teachers in the respondent Education Department of the State Government were sought to be terminated on 3.1.2012 purportedly on the ground that the documents furnished by them at the time of their appointment in the year 1999 were wrong and some interpolations were made in the marks-sheets for which an FIR was filed and the marks were wrongly added for preparing the merit on the basis of which they were offered such appointment and there were mistakes committed in the computation of marks and merit list. The termination orders were challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions which came to be disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 1.5.2012. The relevant part of the order is quoted below for ready reference: "The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the petitioners came to be selected for appointment as Teacher Gr.III as a consequent to process of selection initiated by the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur in the year 1998. Initially the appointment was given on temporary basis with probation for a term of two years, but that came to be confirmed on the successful completion of the period of probation. A first information report dated 27.7.2004 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Dungarpur by the Chief Executive Officer against several persons employed as Teacher Gr.III, as a consequent to the process of selection referred. It was alleged that while availing appointments some interpolation was made in mark-sheets and other relevant documents and as such appointments were obtained by fraud. Subsequent thereto a writ petition in public interest (DBCivil (PIL) Writ Petition No.3596/2004) was filed before Jaipur Bench of this Court that came to be disposed of on 28.4.2005 in following terms:- "xxx xxx xxx" An another writ petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No.4974/2004 was filed before this Court by 30 persons who were not selected for appointment though they faced process of selection alongwith the petitioners. In the petition for writ referred above a direction was sought to appoint them on the post of Teacher Gr.III by removing some of the persons against whom allegations were made in first information report filed at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur. The petition for writ bearing No.4974/2004 came to be disposed of on 20.1.2011 with following directions:- "In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to complete the process against the candidates for whom enquiry has been initiated by the department and comply with the aforesaid directions issued by Division Bench of this Court within a period of six months from today and after completion of process, if any vacancy becomes vacant, then, the case of the petitioners may be considered strictly in accordance with the rules." In compliance of the directions aforesaid the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur framed charges against the petitioners and served a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 upon the petitioners Gowardhan Singh, Dilip Singh, Hari Singh in SBCivil Writ Petitions No.498/12, 691/12 and 696/12. On behalf of the remaining petitioners it is stated that though charges were framed against them but the charge sheet was not served, however, they were aware of framing of charges and as such all the petitioners submitted their explanation to the disciplinary authority. All the petitioners denied the charges and claimed for regular disciplinary action. The order impugned dated 3.1.2012 then was passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur terminating the petitioners from service. Suffice to mention here that the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur neither used the term "dismissal" nor "removal", the penalties prescribed under the Rules of 1958 but used the term "termination from service". The order impugned also mentions about supply of the inquiry report to the petitioners in compliance of the provisions of Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958, however, no such report is available on record. The submission of counsel for the petitioners while giving challenge to the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 is that as a matter of fact no inquiry at all was conducted by the respondents before terminating them from service. It is stated that no inquiry report as referred in the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 factually exists. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioners availed employment by making fraud and, therefore, necessary inquiry was initiated as per provisions of the Rules of 1958, consequent to which the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 was passed. On repeated asking by the Court learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the inquiry report dated 29.5.2004 was supplied to the petitioners and on basis of that disciplinary action was taken. The inquiry report dated 29.5.2004 is available on record as Anx.R/4 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.767/2012. From perusal of the inquiry report it is apparent that the same was a fact finding inquiry conducted much back in the year 2004 and not as a consequent to the allegations settled against the petitioners. It appears that the respondents instead of conducting regular inquiry in accordance with law by adhering procedure under the Rules of 1958 made an effort to hash-up the entire matter just to make compliance of the directions given by this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.4974/2004 on 20.1.2011. No material is available on record to get satisfy that any inquiry officer ever was appointed by the disciplinary authority and any process of inquiry as per the Rules of 1958 ever taken place. The petitioners have been terminated from service without holding any inquiry stipulated under the Rules of 1958. As such, the order impugned dated 3.1.2012 is apparently bad. The same, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed. The orders impugned dated 3.1.2012 passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate and proceed with regular disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners as per the provisions of the Rules of 1958. The inquiry so conducted shall be concluded expeditiously as far as possible within a period of six months from today. While holding inquiry the disciplinary authority shall ensure necessary compliance of the procedure given under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioners are directed to report to the disciplinary authority on 25.5.2012 enabling him to proceed against them for disciplinary action.;