Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner while working as Professor (Astrology) at Government Acharaya Sanskrit College, Kota, was served with a charge sheet on 11th March, 2008, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958', for short), for having studied as a regular student and having worked as Headmaster, simultaneously for the same period. As a consequence, penalty of removal from service, was inflicted. Aggrieved of the penalty imposed, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - - "a) By an appropriate order or direction the impugned Charge sheet dated 11.3.2008 and Punishment Order dated 22.9.2010, may kindly be quashed and set aside in all respect and the petitioner may kindly be reinstated back in service with all consequential service benefits from the date of dismissal. b) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, be also passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first notice. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Teacher Grade -II on 22nd January, 1973, on temporary basis. Having successfully participated in response to the advertisement issued in the year 1980, he was appointed as Professor Language Science. Later on, Language Science transformed into Discipline of Astrology and consequently, the petitioner was accorded appointment as Professor -Astrology. On 12th February, 1998, the College where the petitioner worked was taken over by the State Government. On 4th December, 1999, a High Level Selection Committee of the State Government, screened all the eligible candidates. On an analysis of the material on record as to the qualifications of the petitioner, the Committee selected the petitioner for the post of Professor. A preliminary enquiry was conducted in view of some complaints received regarding the documents with reference to academic qualifications and experience of the petitioner. The Assistant Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur, concluded that the genuineness of the academic credentials of the petitioner was doubtful. The competent authority decided to proceed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, as to the genuineness of the educational qualifications, age certificate and experience certificates of the petitioner, leading to issuance of a charge sheet and ultimately the action precipitated into penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 22nd September, 2010. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application assailed the charge sheet and the impugned order of removal from service of the petitioner, firstly, for the petitioner could have been held guilty, only of misconduct in accordance with the relevant service rules enacted by the State Government. Secondly, the petitioner could not have been held guilty for misconduct solely on the ground of obtaining an experience certificate prior to his appointment, from a religious institution where he worked during vacation while he continued his studies as a regular student; and thirdly, the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the action of the State -respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, is bad in the eye of law.
(3.) REFERRING to the period of the alleged misconduct i.e. with effect from 1st November, 1966 to 21st January, 1973, while the petitioner was principal at Shri Laxmikant Bhawan Banshiat, Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.), and the educational qualifications acquired in the year 1968, as a regular student at Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit University, Muzaffurnagar as well as studies pursued in the subject of 'Viyakaran Shastra', as a regular student from Ram Krishna Sanskrit University, Muzaffurnagar, successfully; is the period prior to his employment with the State Government. Thus, the petitioner did not commit any misconduct or exhibit any unlawful behaviour, which is the most essential ingredient to constitute an act of 'misconduct', while discharging duties. Moreover, the petitioner has been removed from service depriving him of all benefits of his unblemished service record of 35 years on the pretext of having received the experience certificate, for his religious teaching in an institution, which was not affiliated to any university or state body.;