RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has, in this writ petition, challanged the charge-sheet dated 21.06.1974 issued to him by the respondents. THErefore, he has prayed that the impugned charge-sheet, the enquiry initiated in furtherance thereof and the subsequent orders which may be passed in consonance with the charge-sheet, be quashed and set aside. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him on the post of Senior Medical Officer and be given Super Time Scale and the benefits of increments, revision of pay scale, senior scale, etc. from the date on which his juniors had been given. He has also prayed that respondents be directed to assign appropriate seniority to the petitioner.
(2.) BROADLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon on 20.01.1970. Thereafter, he was regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner came to be posted in Government E.S.I. Dispensary, Jhotwara, Jaipur. The petitioner was on duty on 22.04.1972 in the morning as well as evening, to attend his work at the dispensary. On that day, a First Information Report came to be lodged by Subhash Chandra Hariyana, an Octroi Clerk in the service of Municipal Council, Jaipur and Mustakim against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420 and 379 I.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in the night of 22.04.1972 and was later enlarged on bail on 27.04.1972. After investigation in the matter, the police filed challan in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City. Subsequently, the informant Subhash Chandra Hariyana and the Municipal Council, Jaipur through its President, moved an application before the Court concerned, that sanction be accorded for compromise in the case as the offences were compoundable with the permission of the Court. The learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur City had thereafter heard the parties and considered the case on merits, in respect of the offences under Sections 120-B and 170 I.P.C. The learned Court held that the evidence on record did not disclose any offence under Sections 120-B and 170 I.P.C. against the petitioner and the co-accused. Consequently, the learned Magistrate passed the order on 15.11.1972, as follows:- In view of the above I find that the offence 120B & 170 IPC are not made out so as to framed the charges. Both are discharged of the offence 170 and 120B IPC and acquitted of the offences 419, 420 & 379 IPC on account of the compromise. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 25.07.1972. But after the aforesaid order of acquittal, the authorities concerned had not reinstated the petitioner in service. Therefore, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on 06.03.1973 and 25.03.1973, requesting for his early reinstatement. The then the Chief Minister of Rajasthan had forwarded one of the representations made by the petitioner alongwith the certified copy of the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur City and by his order dated 03.02.1973 directed the Secretary, Appointment Department, which was also in the portfolio of the Chief Minister, to please examine and suggest necessary action in the case of the petitioner. In furtherance of the said order of the Chief Minister, the Appointment Department called for the opinion of the Law and Medical Departments. After examining the report received from the said departments and also after examining the case, the Appointment Department submitted the case to the then Chief Minister and suggested that a Departmental Enquiry may be initiated in the matter. However, the then Chief Minister having personally gone through the aforesaid three reports as well as the facts of the case, suggested that there is no necessity for holding a departmental enquiry. Consequently, in the month of March, 1973, the suggestions made by the department was rejected and it was ordered that the departmental enquiry be not held. On the basis of the said order passed by the Chief Minister, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 07.04.1973 and the same was received by him on 09.04.1973 (Annexure-6). But the petitioner did not receive any order in respect of salary, etc. for the period of suspension. Therefore, he represented the respondents on 09.04.1973, 18.04.1973, 15.06.1973 and 24.11.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure-12) issued by the Deputy Secretary (Appointment) on 21.06.1974, through the Director Medical & Health Officer and Health Services/Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sikar and the same was received by him on 22.08.1974. The petitioner had then submitted an explanation on 02.09.1974. (Annexure-13). Subsequently, the petitioner had also submitted a representation on 26.12.1974 (Annexure-14). But no order/action was taken on the representations of the petitioner and the Deputy Secretary (Appointment), vide his order dated 10.03.1975, appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold fresh enquiry into the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries (respondent No. 2) on 13.03.1975 directing him to present himself in connection with the enquiry on 17.04.1975 at 10.00 am. The petitioner had then challenged the charge-sheet dated 21.06.1974 and also the initiation of enquiry by preferring a writ petition (735/1975) before the High Court. The said writ petition came to be decided on 09.05.1984, with the following order:- With these observations I discharge the rule, I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and I disposed of the case on technical point. There will no order as to cost. On serving of the charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry remained pending thereafter. The petitioner then sent a notice for demand of justice to the respondents on 26.01.1994 but the same was not replied to. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayers.
(3.) THE respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply to it. A perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and 3 goes to show that the contents of para No. 1 to 5 of the writ petition are not disputed. However, they have not admitted the contents of para No. 6 of the writ petition. Likewise, the contents of para No. 7 and 8 have not been disputed. THE contents of para No. 9 of the writ petition have not been admitted. Further, the contents of para No. 10 and 11 of the writ petition are not disputed. Respondents have stated in the reply that the decision to issue the charge-sheet was taken by the State Government as per the provisions of C.C.A. Rules. It is also stated that the charge-sheet was issued by the State Government after taking decision on the charges which are in respect of judicial custody and absence from duty. Further, the respondents have stated that the proceedings after the charge-sheet could not be taken up because of the stay order granted by the Court on 31.05.1994. THE respondent No. 2 has filed a separate reply to the writ petition, reiterating the facts of the case, as mentioned above. It has been stated in the reply that mere routine signatures on the official record does not mean that the petitioner remained on duty on 22.04.1972. So far as the parawise reply to the writ petition is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has mainly stated that the contents are either not relevant or are not disputed. It has also been stated in the reply that the petitioner is not cooperating with the departmental enquiry and the same is still going on. It has been further stated that merely because lapse of some time, the enquiry cannot be dropped. As regards the ground A to F of the writ petition, it has only stated that they are not admitted and that the petitioner has reiterated the facts mentioned by him in the previous para of the writ petition. It is to be noted here that both the respondents have filed short replies and no document had been filed in support of their case. Later on an additional affidavit had been filed by the officer incharge, at the time when the hearing of the writ petition was to commence. Alongwith the affidavit some documents have also been filed. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have not concluded the enquiry despite of the fact that the charge-sheet was issued on 21.06.1974, in respect of an incident pertaining to the year 1972. Therefore, it is submitted that an inordinate delay has been caused in initiating the enquiry and this itself shows that a prolonged enquiry had been held to harass the petitioner. It is also stated that one of the cause of harassment is that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court against the respondents. Further the case of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet is illegal on the ground that no preliminary enquiry was held before the issuance of the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not made available the documents demanded by him. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner only in the year 1974 allegedly against the charges of the year 1972. In other words, it is stated that initiation and the issuance of the charge-sheet upon the delinquent was after an inordinate delay is malafide. The petitioner has also relied upon the Government Circular dated 17.03.1960, in support of his case, that impugned charge-sheet is not sustainable because the respondents have failed to abide by the time bound schedule programme given in it. Another submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground that it is totally vague. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh & Anr., 1990 (Supp) SCC 738; State of A.p. vs. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 and P. V. mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Baord, (2005) 6 SCC 636. ;