CW 4887/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4887/2007 Ram Karan Jat Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 08/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sandeep Sharma for Ms Swati Bhati, for petitioners Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Addl.Govt. Counsel, for State Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.07/10/1993 (Ann.1) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service; and so also order dt.22/03/07 (Ann.6) whereby his application was rejected by respondents. Petitioner was appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 01/07/1985, and on completion of satisfactory period of probation was confirmed on 10/07/1987. He acquired Purv-Madhyama Pariksha Praman Patra from Shri Brihad Gujarat Sanskrit Parishad, Ahmedabad (Ann.1A). It appears from the record that there were some correspondences having taken place between institution & respondents, on the basis whereof, certificate acquired by petitioner (Ann.1A) was found to be forged – taking note whereof, FIR- 263/93 was registered for offences U/Ss 420, 468, 120-B, 467 & 471, IPC, consequently, he was suspended vide order dt.20/09/93. However, after usual investigation, challan was filed in CW 4887/07 //2// criminal court. Without waiting for result of criminal case registered against petitioner, memo of charge dt.25/09/93 was served upon and proceedings U/r 7 of Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishads Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1961 (“Rules, 1961”), to which he did not submit any reply – in absence whereof, it was considered that he accepted his guilt under memo of charge; consequently, dismissed from service vide order dt.07/10/93 (Ann.1). However, after trial in Cr.Case-260/95 (931/2003), petitioner was acquitted by Addl. Chief Judl. Mag. Niwai (Tonk) vide judgment dt.15/09/06 (Ann.2), he submitted representation /appeal alongwith judgment of acquittal on 22/01/07 but the same was rejected vide order dt.22/03/07 (Ann.6) on the premise that the Court has only acquitted him and there is no direction for reinstatement in service. Counsel for petitioner inter-alia submits that no memo of charge was ever served upon petitioner; that apart, procedure as provided for major penalty was not followed; and even if contention of respondents is taken at its face value that he failed to submit his reply to the memo of charge, that could not be CW 4887/07 //3// considered to be sufficient in holding him guilty, as respondents were under obligation to hold inquiry under Rules, 1961 – in absence whereof, holding him guilty of imputed charges & imposing penalty of dismissal from service vide order impugned is not legally sustainable. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that after charge sheet dt.25/09/93 was served, since petitioner failed to submit his reply thereto – in absence whereof, it was considered that he had accepted his guilt; as such no error was committed in inflicting penalty of dismissal from service vide order impugned. Government Counsel further submits that as regards, his acquittal recorded by competent court of jurisdiction, it was not an honourable acquittal and there is no direction of his reinstatement vide judgment dt.15/09/06 (Ann.2); as such his appeal was rightly rejected vide order dt. 22/03/07 (Ann.6). I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Petitioner has tried to satisfy this Court that correspondence has taken place with Educational Institution from where he acquired certificate CW 4887/07 //4// (Ann.1) as is evident from letter dt.16/03/1994 (Ann.5) holding that the degree as alleged to be forged was awarded to him. As regards members of Rajasthan Panchayat Service Rules, disciplinary action can be initiated under Rules, 1961 wherein schedule of punishment has been provided in R.6 while at the same time, procedure has been provided U/r 7 for imposing major penalties which is almost pari materia to the procedure for imposing major penalties as provided U/r 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The Scheme of Rules, 1961 clearly contemplates that after the charge sheet is served, reply is to be called upon from the delinquent; and if he failed to submit his written statement, disciplinary authority may either himself or nominate any person to inquire into the charges imputed against delinquent – in course whereof, inquiring authority shall call upon documentary evidence, if any and taking such oral evidence, and relevant material on record about charges levelled against delinquent and on conclusion of inquiry, inquiring authority may submit record of inquiry alongwith its report to the disciplinary authority which may examine the same and thereafter pass CW 4887/07 //5// appropriate orders inflicting penalty as per guilt found proved by inquiry authority after affording opportunity to the delinquent before inflicting penalty upon him under scheme of Rules, 1961. In instant case, charge sheet as allegedly was issued on 25/09/93 as is apparent from penalty order dt.07/10/93 (Ann.1) and since petitioner failed to submit his reply to the charge-sheet, it was considered by disciplinary authority as if he has admitted his guilt under memo of charges and accordingly dismissed him from service vide order dt.07/10/93 (Ann.1). Such action on part of respondents cannot be considered to in consonance with R.7 of Rules, 1961 and in the opinion of this Court, procedure adopted in holding him guilty was in violation of principles of natural justice and is not legally sustainable. As regards subsequent order dt.22/03/07 (Ann.6) rejecting appeal/representation made by petitioner in the light of his acquittal, once there was an order of acquittal in criminal case being passed by competent court of jurisdiction, it was expected from the authority to have independently examined as to whether there is any material which may hold the petitioner CW 4887/07 //6// guilty either in course of inquiry or during trial in which he was finally acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction and as to whether he should be reinstated in service – which having not been examined by the respondents in instant case, order dt.22/03/07 (Ann.6) in changed circumstances (supra) brought on record by petitioner, is not legally sustainable. As regards merits of matter, since charge sheet was issued for having produced forged degree/certificate, petitioner placed material on record to show that his certificate/ degree has been verified from the Educational institution. It was for the authority to examine in the course of inquiry. No opinion can be expressed by this Court. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.07/10/93 (Ann.1) and subsequent order dt.22/03/07 (Ann.6), both are quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, he will not be entitled for pecuniary benefits for intervening period during which he actually did not work; and this order will not preclude the respondents from holding disciplinary inquiry in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations, if any made (supra). No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/4887CW07-0812.doc