CWP 3032/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3032/2000 Pankaj Gehlot Versus State & Anr Date of Order ::: 24/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Suresh Sahni, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondents Instant petition has been filed seeking direction to (1) declare result of DPC convened on 10/05/2000 and (2) quash the charge sheet & memo dt.09/06/2000 served upon petitioner. While this Court issued notice to respondents vide order dt.13/04/2000, ad interim stay order was passed directing respondents to declare result of DPC convened on 10/05/2000 without being affected by charge sheet dt. 09/06/2000 served upon petitioner. It appears that a dispute came up before this Court at the instance of M/s Associate Stones Co. Ltd in Civil Writ Petition No.3383/90, which was decided on 13/11/97 while expressing after going through the record that officers of the Mines Department have not taken proper care of matter and relevant files could not have been searched in the office of respondents and finally this Court observed to initiate disciplinary action against defaulting officers CWP 3032/2K //2// including instant petitioner, as well. After judgment of this Court, factual report (Ann.2) was sent by Additional Director Mines on 03/04/99 to the Director (Mines) and finally State Government served charge sheet to petitioner asking for explanation within 15 days vide memo dt.09/06/2000 (Ann.4). Counsel for petitioner submits that after factual report was sent by Additional Director (Mines), it was accepted by Director (Mines) – reference whereof has been made in para 5 of writ petition; as such action of serving charge sheet impugned and asking for explanation thereto vide memo (Ann.4) is not legally sustainable. Counsel further submits that inquiry was dropped against co-delinquent Mohd. Hussain who was working as Mining Engineer like petitioner, since stood retired on 31/12/99 on attaining age of superannuation and in whose favour a certificate was issued that no inquiry could be initiated against him; as such no purpose even otherwise is going to serve in continuing with charge sheet impugned against petitioner and therefore, petitioner too is entitled for same parity. Reply has been filed by respondents raising objection that instant petition is pre- mature because charge sheet was served alongwith CWP 3032/2K //3// memo (Ann.4), to which petitioner has failed to furnish his explanation as asked for and before inquiry could be concluded according to the procedure provided under CCA Rules, he preferred instant petition. Counsel for respondents further submits that there was clear direction vide ad interim stay order for declaring result of the DPC, which was declared on 18/10/2000 and recommendations of the DPC were implemented. This Court has considered the contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. While examining CWP 3383/90 filed by M/s Associate Stones Co., this Court vide order dt.13/11/97 observed to initiate inquiry against defaulting officers including petitioner as well – in pursuance whereof, respondent department conducted preliminary inquiry and its report dt.03/04/99 was submitted by Additional Director (Mines) before the Director, and thereafter was sent on 03/06/1999 to the State government which did not agree to preliminary inquiry report and finally considered to serve charge sheet alongwith memo (Ann.4) asking for his explanation within fifteen days. Submission made by Counsel for petitioner that report submitted by Additional Director (Mines) was accepted by the Director (Mines); as CWP 3032/2K //4// such, calling upon explanation vide memo (Ann.4) will not serve any purpose to continue with the charge sheet, is not of substance for the reason that ultimate decision has to be taken by State Government, which has not agreed to preliminary inquiry report, and took decision to serve charge sheet upon defaulting officers. That apart, petitioner has not cared to furnish explanation on merits in regard to charges levelled against him vide memo (Ann.4) before disciplinary authority. In considered opinion of this Court, the petition is pre-mature and not maintainable at this stage particularly when inquiry has yet to be processed under CCA Rules, and opportunity was available to him to raise all objections in course of inquiry. No claim of parity qua co-delinquent Shri Mohd. Hussain, can be claimed merely because of issuance certificate about pendency of no inquiry against co-delinquent, which in no manner absolves petitioner from charges levelled against him vide memo (Ann.4). As regards recommendations of the DPC convened on 10/05/2000, suffice is to say that it has specifically been averred by respondents in their reply that its recommendations were implemented only in compliance of ad interim stay CWP 3032/2K //5// order passed by this Court – pursuant thereto, petitioner has been promoted as Superintending Mining Engineer vide order dt.18/10/2000. It is for the appointing authority to consider the effect of charge-sheet served upon delinquent while accepting recommendations of the DPC as provided in Rule 23A(13) of Rajasthan Mines & Geological Service Rules, 1960, and if list stands finally approved by competent authority, pursuant whereto, appointments are made in the order in which they are placed therein in terms of Rule 23-A(14) of Rules, 1960; and it is imperative that ad interim stay orders passed by this Court are always subject to final outcome of instant petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/3032CWP2K.doc