The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a terminated Class-IV employee's service. The petition was rejected as devoid of merit due to an inordinate delay of over a decade and the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1] SBCWP 1112/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1112/2009
SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Date: 02.02.2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE
Mr. Rambabu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV
employee on compassionate ground in the office of
District Collector, Alwar vide order dated
11.05.1992. The respondent No.3- Tehsildar,
Laxmangarh, District Alwar issued a memorandum of
charges to the petitioner alleging therein that the
petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on
various occasions. After conducting enquiry, the
Disciplinary Authority i.e. Tehsildar, Laxmangarh
found proved all the charges against the petitioner
of remaining willfully absent from duties from time
to time and terminated the petitioner from service
vide order impugned dated 16.01.1997.
The aforesaid impugned termination order
dated 16.01.1997 has been challenged by the
petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that
the Collector is the appointing authority of the
petitioner and he was the only competent to issue
charge-sheet and punish the petitioner, whereas in
the instant case charge-sheet has been issued by the
[2] SBCWP 1112/2009
Tehsildar and dismissal order is also passed by the
Tehsildar, Laxmangarh, who is not competent
authority. It is also contended that the entire
enquiry proceeded ex parte without considering the
evidence adduced by the petitioner in his defence.
I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and carefully gone through the averments
made in the writ petition as well as the material
and documents annexed therewith.
The petitioner neither able to explain as
to why he has challenged the impugned termination
order dated 16.01.1997 after an inordinate delay of
more than a decade nor any explanation for this
delay has been given in the writ petition. Even
otherwise also, the petitioner has got alternative
efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned
termination order, but in any case, at this belated
stage, this Court do not find any merit in the writ
petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails being
devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
(K.S. RATHORE),J.
/KKC/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the writ petition and the availability of alternative efficacious remedy precludes the grant of relief?
Whether the court has any merit in the challenge to the termination order on grounds of jurisdiction and ex parte proceedings at this belated stage?
SURJEET SINGH
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
K.S. RATHORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court