1 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6288/2004. : : Anil Kumar Maheshwari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 22.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Deepak Singh Mehta for the petitioner. Mr.Deshraj for the respondent No.3. Mr.Shyam Sunder Sharma, Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order of 16.7.2004 and the consequential order of his removal dated 18.8.2004. The petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher (Shiksha Sahayogi) on the basis of his qualification of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. vide order dated 20.5.1999. The respondents however, removed him from service on the ground of his earlier involvement in a criminal case. Shri Deepak Singh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this criminal case was falsely registered against the petitioner at the behest of respondent No.3 Satya Narain Sharma, who wanted to create a vacancy 2 for appointment of his son. Learned counsel submitted that it was a false case of outraging the modesty of a woman which was registered against the petitioner by her husband Sukhlal at the instance of respondent No.3, who then got the complaints of this made against the petitioner to the Government. The prosecutrix Sushila in her statement before the Court has completely disowned the allegation of outraging her modesty and on the contrary she stated that her husband lodged the report even after she asked him not to do so. Learned counsel produced certified copies of the statement of prosecutrix and certified copy of judgment of learned rial Court dated 7.2.2005 by which the petitioner has been acquitted. Learned counsel argued that neither any enquiry was conducted nor he was served with any notice prior to termination of his services. Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, learned Govt.Counsel has contested the writ petition and argued that since there were serious allegations against the petitioner for offence under Sections 451 & 354 IPC in which it was shown that he tried to outrage the modesty of a woman, therefore, his services were terminated in summary manner. There was no need for holding enquiry because the petitioner was not subject to Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & 3 Appeal) Rules, 1958 nor he was appointed under the Rajasthan Service Rules. Shri Deshraj, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Sarpanch refuted the allegations against his client and submitted that there was absolutely no basis to allege that criminal case was falsely registered against the petitioner at his instance. The Gram Panchayat had to pass removal order because direction to that effect was issued by the Government on 16.7.2004. On consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal the order of Government dated 16.7.2004, I find that the petitioner was removed by the Gram Panchayat only on the basis of the Government order which in turn was based on the petitioner allegedly involving him in a criminal case. The order of the Government states that there were allegations against the petitioner of committing rape upon a woman whereas the judgment of trial Court and also the statements of witnesses indicate that allegation was only to outrage the modesty of a woman and even that case was not substantiated because the prosecutrix clearly stated that a quarrel took place between the petitioner and her husband. Her husband in spite of her telling him not to do so lodged the criminal case. Regarding the fact that the petitioner was 4 involved in the criminal case, the order of Government not only suffers from non-application of mind but also it has been passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice. The order states allegation of rape against the petitioner, whereas allegation against the petitioner was only to outrage the modest of a woman, which is evident from the copy of the first information report also. Even if the petitioner was not subject to Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, his services could not be dispensed with in such a summary manner. The respondents have not even served a notice upon him. The impugned order thus has been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. If at all the petitioner was to be proceeded against on allegations of involvement of the criminal case, the respondents were at least required to serve upon him a notice calling upon him to explain his conduct. Moreover, if the removal on such allegations was to be made, it should have been proceeded by an enquiry. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order of Government dated 16.7.2004 and the removal order dated 18.8.2004 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service with all 5 consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.39.