SBCWP NO.6655/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6655/1997. Gopal Singh Versus the Municipal Corporation & Anr. Date of Order:- February 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ankur Srivastava for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Sharma for the respondent. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 on 25/10/1997 challenging the order of termination dated 7/5/1990. Learned counsel for petitioner has pressed the writ petition on merits but he is unable to explain the delay. Argument that charges on which he was proceeded on the departmental enquiry were different for which he was ultimately removed. In the charge sheet it was alleged that due to negligent act, petitioner has abated the theft of 10 HP motor but in the order of removal, it is stated that SBCWP NO.6655/97. 2 since 10 HP motor was stolen he was being removed. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Charge No.1 was contrary to Charge No.2 in which, disciplinary authority has expressed his opinion that petitioner by leaving his duty place before duty hours abated in the theft of the motor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the subsequent order dated 14/5/1990, it was mentioned that Suraj Prakash as well as the petitioner were not found guilty and were let off with warning. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of the court towards the enquiry report and has argued that even though petitioner was a daily wage employee yet, respondents keeping in view the principles of natural justice held an enquiry against him, in which, he was found guilty. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order dated 14/5/1990 was intended only with regard to Suraj Prakash and enquiry was held against both of them cannot be therefore out of context. He also referred the enquiry report in which the charges against the petitioner were found proved. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the material on record, I find that SBCWP NO.6655/97. 3 apart from delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court, he was merely a daily wage chowkidar and was found gross negligent in leaving the duty place before the duty hours. Though departmental enquiry was held both, against the petitioner as well as Suraj Prakash, another chowkidar but vide order dated 27/28.5.1988, Suraj Prakash Chowkidar was reinstated in service on exoneration by the enquiry officer. What is stated in the order is that enquiry is held against Suraj Prakash and Gopal Singh and both of them were suspended but lateron Suraj Prakash was exonerated. It is in this context, that he was let off by warning. Since petitioner had already been removed vide order dated 7/5/1990, this order was not issued for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil