1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7481/2004 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 6420/2004 (Shyam Babu Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 21st May, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the petitioner with Shri Bhupendra Pareek Shri S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th July, 2004 (Annexure-14), whereby Deputy Transport Commissioner (Rules) was appointed as enquiry officer in place of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Writs) and also the order dated 2nd February, 2001 (Annexure-4) i.e. memorandum of charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. 3. A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed their written-reply, wherein it is contended that after filing of this writ 2 petition, the petitioner vide his application dated 27.2.2005 (Annexure-R/1) requested the respondents for change of enquiry officer on the ground that Shri P.C.Meena was prejudiced with the petitioner and now he himself has joined the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Rules), hence he may be changed and his request was allowed and vide order dated 21st March, 2005 (Annexure-R/2), the enquiry officer was changed from Deputy Transport Commissioner (Rules) to Regional Transport Officer, Dausa, therefore, impugned order dated 26th July, 2004 does not exist and the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has also challenged the Memorandum dated 2nd February, 2001 (Annexure- 4) and as such the writ petition has not become infructuous. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the pleading of the parties, it is clear that the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 20th October, 2004 challenging the order dated 26th July, 2004 and thereafter the petitioner himself moved an application (Annexure-R/1) to change the 3 enquiry officer and his request was allowed and enquiry officer was changed vide order Annexure-R/2, hence the writ petition, to that extent, has become infructuous. So far as the challenge to Memorandum dated 2nd February, 2001 (Annexure-4) is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that the cause of action to challenge the Memorandum dated 2nd February, 2001 arose to petitioner in February, 2001 itself, but the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than 3 ½ years, therefore, the writ petition suffers from delay / latches and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It appears that the prayer relating to order dated 2nd February, 2001 has been added along-with the challenge to order dated 26th July, 2004, otherwise the petitioner was not willing to challenge this Memorandum (Annexure-4) when it was served upon him in 2001. 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that so far as challenge to order dated 26th July, 2004 is concerned, the writ petition has become infructuous and challenge to Memorandum dated 2nd February, 2001 is concerned, the writ petition is liable to be 4 dismissed on the ground of delay / latches in filing the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed as such. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the ad-interim ex-parte stay order dated 29.10.2004 is vacated and the stay application filed therewith stands disposed of. 10. The petitioner has already retired, hence it is expected from the respondents that they will conclude the enquiry as far as possible. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK