[1] SBCWP 2695/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2695/1996 J.S. CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 17/08/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Vinod Goyal for Mr. Virendra Lodha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel for State. **** By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.11.1991, the order dated 31.05.1993 and the order of the Governor dated 17.02.1994 resulting in imposition of penalty of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on 10.12.1973 in the erstwhile Agriculture Department. Later on, his services were transferred to Agriculture Marketing Department and he was selected as Agriculture Extension Officer in 1977 through RPSC and at present the petitioner is working as Jr. Marketing Officer. The petitioner while he was posted as Additional Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur, a charge-sheet along with memorandum of statement of allegations was served on him on 18.11.1991 for the alleged incident pertaining to the year 1980-81 while he was posted [2] SBCWP 2695/1996 as Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Deedwana with allegation of loss of Rs. 198/- caused to the Samiti for purchase of tube-light rodes and he withdrew a sum of Rs. 250/- from the account of Rakesh Kumar, LDC without any authority of law. The petitioner submitted reply on 06.12.1991 and thereafter without taking into consideration his reply, the order dated 31.05.1993 (Annexure-3) imposing punishment of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect was passed, against which an appeal was filed before the Governor and by the order of the Governor dated 17.02.1994 (Annexure-5), the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was substituted. The order dated 31.05.1993 was passed without holding any enquiry, without adopting any procedure for conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order dated 17.02.1994 was also passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so, both the orders including charge-sheet may be quashed and may be declared null and void and the respondents may be directed to release annual grade increment which have been withheld on account of punishment order dated 17.02.1994. The respondents submitted reply and mentioned that the enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, initiated against the petitioner, was converted into enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA [3] SBCWP 2695/1996 Rules vide order dated 04.01.1993 and the petitioner was asked to produce additional statements, but the petitioner requested that the reply submitted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules may be treated as reply under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules but he may be given an opportunity of personal hearing. He was heard personally on 10.03.1993 and after examining the matter, the petitioner was found guilty and the order dated 31.05.1993 came to be passed. It was further submitted that no appeal could have been filed against the order and the appeal filed by the petitioner was treated as review, which was decided on 17.02.1994 after considering the record, hence, the petition may be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that enquiry has been initiated after 11 years without any basis and neither proper notice nor opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, hence, the order of punishment and the review order of punishment are vitiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ground regarding delay in initiating proceedings has not been taken by the petitioner in his petition and further submitted that proper notice and opportunity of personal hearing were given to the petitioner and after considering record, the punishment orders have been [4] SBCWP 2695/1996 passed, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is an admitted position that enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 18.11.1991 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 06.12.1991. Later on, vide letter dated 04.01.1993, proceedings were converted under Rule 17 from Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and in pursuance of this letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 12.01.1993 (Annexure- R/2), submitted that reply filed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules may be treated as reply under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, but he may be given an opportunity of personal hearing. The order dated 31.05.1993 imposing punishment clearly reveals that on 10.03.1993, the petitioner was heard by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner was given opportunity to submit additional reply on conversion of enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and as per the petitioner's request, he was personally heard and only after that, order dated 31.05.1993 was passed. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that no proper procedure for holding enquiry was followed. It becomes evident that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he availed this opportunity, even then, he has wrongly mentioned in his petition that he was not given any opportunity of hearing and on [5] SBCWP 2695/1996 this count, the petition is liable to be dismissed. As far delay of 11 years in initiating enquiry, the petitioner has nowhere taken this ground in his writ petition and in such circumstances, on the ground of delay in initiation of proceedings, the punishment order cannot be quashed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( K.S. CHAUDHARI ) ,J. /KKC/