H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.1 and Annex.2 dated 24.07.2002 and 02.04.2003 respectively.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the CCA Rules" hereinafter). He was served with a memorandum of allegation. The inquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and by order Annex.1 dated 24.07.2002 imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The order imposing penalty Annex. 1 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by order Annex.2 dated 02.04.2003. Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents contending therein that an inquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was conducted by following the procedure prescribed and there is no procedural error in conducting the inquiry as also the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer on the basis of the material available before it found the charges proved against the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was visited with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The charge against the petitioner was that he was negligent and inefficient in discharging his duties resulting in adversely affecting the income of the respondent Corporation. It was also contended that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches inasmuch as the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.1 dated 24.07.2002 and order Annex.2 dated 02.04.2003 almost after five years without there being any explanation forthcoming for filing a belated writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinafter.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though at the relevant time, the petitioner was Chief Manager of the Sirohi depot of the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation" hereinafter) but it was beyond his control to fetch the income to the expectation of the Corporation by plying the buses from the said Depot, however, failed to explain any reason for filing the writ petition almost after five years from the date of the orders impugned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any procedural error or illegality in holding the inquiry, however, contended that the allegation made in the memorandum of allegation do not fall within the ambit of the expression "Misconduct" as envisaged Under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules.;