-1- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.583 of 2003. IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1503 of 2000 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi son of Shri R.L. Sharma VERSUS Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer through its Chairman & Managing Director. D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDINANCE, 1949 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE ON 07.08.2000 DISMISSING S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1503 OF 2000. Date of Judgment :::: 16.09.2010. P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Kothari Shri Jitendra Kumar Trivedi, appellant present in-person. Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma, P.O. A.V.V.N.L., Bhilwara (Ajmer) present in-person. By the Court : **** This special appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant had challenged his order of termination from service dated 26.02.2000, Annexure-12 to the writ petition passed in pursuance of the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report {Annexure-10} and affirmed by the disciplinary authority. -2- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL Since, the controversy has been narrowed down considerably, as was noticed by us on the previous date and recorded in our order dated 07.09.2010, we may here only briefly state the facts as follows :- A joint inquiry was held against three workmen namely, present appellant- Jitendra Kumar Trivedi, Deepak Agarwal and Naresh Kumar Sharma along with R.R.P. Sharma and R.K. Upadhiyaya, Personnel Officer. The charges against three workmen namely, Naresh Kumar Sharma, Deepak Agarwal and the present appellant were common of having falsely procured the certificates on the basis of incorrect and forged muster-rolls with a view to seek appointment in the service. Similar allegations were also there, so far as the A.En. R.R.P. Sharma are concerned, inasmuch as he was alleged to have issued the experience certificate in favour of the three workmen, including the present appellant based upon the fabricated Attendance Register. In the present appeal filed by the petitioner- appellant the short submission made by the petitioner- appellant is that the writ petition filed by co-delinquents- Naresh Kumar Sharma as well as Deepak Agarwal being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1488 of 2000 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1487 of 2000 respectively came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2005 and 26.04.2005 respectively. The main judgment finds place in the case of -3- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1488 of 2000 filed by Naresh Kumar Sharma wherein the learned Single Judge after having gone through the entire record has held after noticing the fact that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner (Naresh Kumar Sharma along with other co- delinquent employees) with the same allegations that the petitioner and two other persons had never worked under the A.En. Lalsot. As such the certificate issued by the concerned A.En. at the time of recruitment of the petitioner was false and incorrect. Thus the learned Single Judge after consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that “It can also not be said that the names of the petitioner and other co-delinquent employees were inserted at the bottom at a latter stage. There is also no allegation that the other employees, whose names appear in the attendance register were not working at all in the Office of the A.En. during the relevant period. As such there cannot be any allegation against the petitioner-appellant for creating false attendance register and false evidence to get a certificate of employment for recruitment to the post in question”. (emphasis supplied.). It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the allegation of the petitioner having exerted undue pressure on A.En. concerned for giving certificate has also not been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer himself. -4- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL In conclusion this Court held that “having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion no charge as leveled against the petitioner has been proved at all so far on the basis of the material on record...” We may also state here that R.R.P. Sharma, A.En., concerned, who is said to have issued the certificates to the present appellant and the other co-delinquents also approached this Court by means of the writ petition challenging the order of punishment based upon the above Enquiry report in the joint inquiry held against him as well as present appellant and other co-delinquents - Naresh Kumar Sharma and Deepak Agarwal. The writ petition filed by R.R.P. Sharma, A.En. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.940 of 2000 came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.09.2005 against which the respondents, herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1291 of 2005 and the said appeal filed before the Division Bench came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, which upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 02.08.2007. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has held as follows :- “....At the outset, we deem it appropriate to record that respondent No.1 retired from service seven-years ago. However, this has not been the -5- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL only reason not to entertain this appeal as we have noticed that the charge levelled against the respondent No.1 stating that he had issued a forged and fabricated certificate in favour of three workmen was factually not correct as the certificate was issued on the basis of the Attendance Register and the Attendance Register has not been found forged and fabricated. If the certificate was issued by the respondent on the basis of the Attendance Register obviously, no fault could have been found with the issuance of the certificate.” (emphasis supplied.). The Division Bench further held that order of punishment of reverting R.R.P. Sharma was liable to be set aside and no interference was called for in the findings given by the learned Single Judge to the effect that “..... once the certificates are based on Attendance Register, which has been produced by the appellant and the same has not been held to be forged by the Enquiry Officer, the obvious conclusion was that the certificate issued by the respondentNo.1 also cannot be held to be incorrect in any manner......” (emphasis supplied.). Since, the certificates issued by R.R.P. Sharma were held to be issued on the basis of the Attendance Register by the Division Bench of this Court and these are the very certificates, which were the subject matter of the charge against the present appellant, the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant, therefore, deserves to be allowed in -6- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL view of the findings given in R.R.P. Sharma's case by this Court as well as in the case of co-delinquent Naresh Kumar Sharma while allowing his writ petition vide judgment dated 17.02.2005. Once writ petition filed by Naresh Kumar Sharma, Deepak Agarwal and R.R.P. Sharma with respect to the same joint inquiry based upon the same set of evidence has been allowed by this Court and the orders of punishment having been set aside, the present appeal by Jitendra Kumar Trivedi deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we would accept and allow this special appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1503 of 2000 and set aside the order of punishment, Annexure-12 dated 26.02.2000 removing the petitioner-appellant from service. While allowing this special appeal, we would maintain the same order of relief granted by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma and “....accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. However, on the principle of no work no pay, the petitioner shall not be entitled for actual wages from the date of termination till passing of this order. The respondents are now directed to reinstate the petitioner within 30-days from -7- SAW No.583/2003 Jitendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. AVVNL the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Notional Pay Fixation, if required, may also be made for the intervening period, as mentioned above”. The above directions, as made in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma shall also hold good in the case of the present appellant- Jitendra Kumar Trivedi and the petitioner- appellant also would be entitled to be reinstated as a consequence of setting aside the order Annexure-12 dated 26.02.2000. He would not be entitled to any back wages with effect from 26.02.2000 till 16.09.2010. However, for this intervening period, he shall be treated to be in continuity of service and accordingly entitled to Notional Fixation of pay and other consequential benefits, as directed by this Court in Naresh Kumar Sharma's case. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.S. Kothari) J. (Dalip Singh) J. Ashok/