VERMA, J. - (1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 8. 12. 1995 (Annexure-4) and to declare it illegal, invalid, ultravires and unconstitutional and any adverse action taken or contemplated to be taken on the basis of the impugned charge-sheet be also declared as illegal.
(2.) IT is the submission of the petitioner that as a matter of fact the charge- sheet relating to the incident of 1982- 83 has been issued at the time when he was liable to be considered to be appointed in Indian Administrative Service when some vested interest had played the mischief against the petitioner in such a way as to get the charge-sheet issued to him at the nick of time when the petitioner was at the verge of promotion. Had the charge-sheet not been issued to him, he would have been promoted. His juniors have been appointed in IAS. It is stated that in January, 1995 selections were made for promotion to IAS. Recommendations made by the selection committee were considered and ultimately the petitioner was finally selected on having been so considered by the State Government of Rajasthan and Central Government and the Union Public Service Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that the final selection is made when the integrity certificate is put on the record. In March, 1995 the select list for IAS was prepared wherein the petitioner was included unconditionally at Sr. No. 5. The petitioner submits that on retirement of one Shri R. P Nag, the fifth vacancy had arisen in June, 1995 and his promotion to IAS had matured and in consequence and furtherance to the promo- tion of the petitioner to the cadre of IAS, the recommendations were made by the State Government on 3. 8. 1995 for making promotions from the select list in which select list the petitioner was figuring at the top at the relevant time. However, the petitioner was left out. His juniors were appointed and the petitioner was superseded for the reason that on 8. 12. 1995 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet in respect of an incident pertaining to the year 1982-83. Promotions of the junior persons to IAS had been made on 13. 12. 1995 i. e. after about 5 days of the issuance of the charge-sheet. The petitioner is already taking up his supersession before the Central Administrative Tribunal where the case against his supersession in IAS cadre is pending. The petitioner submits that the charge-sheet not only illegal, but in the circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, written statement as well as in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and the documents attached, there is no misconduct whatsoever made out. It is further submitted that this very matter for which the petitioner had been charge-sheeted was enquired into time and again and no- thing was found against the defaulting official. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not at all concerned with the allegations made in charge-sheet as during the relevant time he was no more the Secretary of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, as he had been was transferred and had left the charge of his post in the month of June, 1984 as is clear from Annexure-4. The charge relates to the decision taken for auction of the plot sit lated at Jodhpur for the construction of Cinema. This decision is said to have been taken by the Urban Improvement Trust in August, 1982. In pursuance of the said decision, it has been brought on record that the auction was held on 10. 10. 1982 by the UIT, but because of the reason that the bids were not found satisfactory, the auction was cancelled. The petitioner joined at Jodhpur on 18. 12. 1982 and remained there in the post of Secretary of the UIT till 29. 6. 1984. The plot was again auctioned on 21. 11. 1982 in pursuance of the decision of the UIT taken in August 1982 for auctioning the plot. Auction was complete and a lease-deed was executed by the then Chairman of the UIT in favour of the highest bidder on 1. 7. 1983. However, in the mean-time the Government had taken a policy decision to permit construction twin cinema and commercial complex as per Annexure 8 attached to the writ petition and circular in this regard was addressed to the various local authorities to the effect that it was permissible to construct twin cinemas as per Annexure-9. It was on 10. 10. 1983 that the Chief Town Planner vide Annexure-10 had written to the local authorities about the revised policy of the cinema industry and the allot- ment of land at fixed price. Because of the reason that the Government had taken a decision for granting permission for construction of twin cinema and commercial complex, the auction purchaser had sent a revised building plan for change of construction to twin cinema and commercial complex. Because of the reason that earlier when the auction was ordered, such policy had not been circulated and, therefore, in the lease-deed there was no mention about the twin cinema construction. The matter in regard to the sanction of the revised plan was ultimately put to the trust committee. The State Government vide Annexure-11 had decided to grant revised license to the auction purchaser for construction of the twin cinema at the site on 22. 11. 1983. Because of the reason that the State Government had granted the license as per revised plan, the Chief Town Planner, to whom the matter was sent by the UIT for opinion, had acted accordingly on sanction of license. It is stated that the petitioner had informed the Collector that had the site been auctioned with the revised conditions, the plot would have been auctioned at a higher rate. Matter in regard to the approval for sanction of the revised plan was still under considera- tion when the petitioner was transferred on 29. 6. 1984. Revised plans were sanctioned on 13. 9. 1984 i. e. after about three months of the transfer of the petitioner. It was a matter of concern with the authorities as to why the approval or revised sanction of approval of maps for twin cinema was granted and, therefore, it was thought to inquire into the matter. The matter was even also referred to Loka- yukta in respect of complaints received regarding various decisions of the UIt including the matter of approval of the revised building plans. It was decided by the department who issued charge- sheet to Shri D. L. Bhakar erstwhile Executive Engineer, UIt, Jodhpur on whose recommendation the revised building plans were approved by the Building Plan Committee as per Anne- xure-23 attached with the rejoinder. A complaint was also made to the Director, Prevention of Corruption Department on 2. 5. 1990 against Shri D. L. Bhakar. It is stated that the petitioner had not been named any where, rather as per Annexure-17 the petitioner was sited as witness. The petitioner was being involved for criminal action as well along with Shri D. L. Bhakar aforesaid and the Government had vide its Annexure-18 taken up the plea that at the time of sanctioning of the revised plan, the petitioner had been transferred in the month of June, 1984 and, therefore, the petitioner was not involved or responsible for sanction of the plan. This was so decided by the Government on 1. 11. 1 994. However, despite the above stand being taken by the government the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide the impugned charge-sheet Annexure-4 dated 8. 12. 1995, with the charges that the building plans were approved by the UIt on 22. 11. 1983 without realising any extra amount from the auction purchaser and the petitioner had failed to high light this aspect at the time of sanction.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that as a matter of fact the approval of the sanction was not granted on 22. 11. 1983 as alleged in the charge-sheet but on 13. 9. 1984 and similar charge- sheet was issued to Dr. D. L. Bhakar in November, 1987, but he was exonerated. Reference is being invited to the charge-sheet issued to Dr. Bhakar which is attached as Annexure 24. It is the case of the petitioner that in the similar circumstances not only in Jodhpur but at so many other places the approval of the revised plan had been allowed but it is the petitioner who has been choosen for the said action mainly for the reason that he was to be promoted immediately and the Inquiry Officer had been appointed against the petitioner vide Annexure-26 vide letter dated 29. 6. 1996. The petitioner prays that the charge-sheet being belated with inordinate delay, is arbitrary and likely to be quashed. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet is manifestly unjust and is based on erroneous assumption that the revised plan was approved on 22. 11. 1983 when it is very clear that the revised plan was approved on 13. 9. 1984 when the petitioner had already transferred from Jodhpur. It is the case of the petitioner that the approval to the revised plan could have been cancelled by his successor if at all under law it was permissible to do so and not the petitioner who was no more holding the said post on the relevant time and date. It is further submitted that similar charges were also levelled against Dr. D. L. Bhakar who has been exonerated. It is further submitted that even though the Govt. had allowed the construction of the twin cinema, the lease-deed could not have been cancelled because of the reason that the lease was given in the open auction and the money had been deposited by the auction purchaser which was duly approved by the Chairman of the UIT. In nutshell the petitioner submits that during the period when he stayed at Jodhpur as Secretary of the UIT, he had no part to play and thus he had been wrongly and erroneously issued the charge- sheet of alleged misconduct when actually there is no misconduct at all made out. ;