Disposed

Ghisu Singh v. State Personnel Department

Rajasthan HC10 May 2012CW/2991/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a late charge sheet. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's unaddressed representation regarding the delay and demand of justice within one month before deciding to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and notice for demand of justice within one month and decide whether to proceed with the enquiry.

Ghisu Singh Vs State Personnel Department — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.2991/2012

¶6

Ghisu Singh Rathore versus State of Rajasthan

Date of Order :-

May 10, 2012.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶11

Mr Rajendra Prasad Sharma – for petitioner

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the charge

¶14

sheet dated 31.5.2010.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that petitioner was

¶16

superannuated on 31.5.2010. He was served with the charge sheet on the of his retirement containing certain allegations pertaining to the year 1983. The charge sheet was issued in ignorance of the fact that FIR for the same incidence was registered in the year 2003 resulted in adverse final report which was then accepted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jaipur. It was after considering the fact that petitioner was holding the post of Tehsildar thus decided the matter in judicial capacity hence FIR is

¶17

¶18

not sustainable. The charge sheet has now been served for the incidence which is old by more than 26-27 years. The petitioner made an application for inspection of record on service of the charge sheet, however, it was not allowed for want of availability. The petitioner then submitted his detailed representation alleging continuance of proceedings in violation of rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996. The petitioner served notice for demand of justice, however, no heed is paid to the aforesaid thus writ petition has been preferred.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that on submission of final report and its acceptance, issuance of charge sheet is wholly erroneous. This is more so when no justification is attached to the delay in initiation of departmental proceedings after a lapse of 27 years thus writ petition may be allowed.

¶20

I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record.

¶21

On service of the charge sheet, petitioner submitted a detail representation at Annexure-6 to the respondents. It is with the request to allow inspection of record. The reference of circular issued by the Department of Personnel on 31.8.2006 at Annexure-

¶22

¶23

9 was given to indicate that disciplinary action should be initiated without delay.

¶24

Looking to the aforesaid, I am of the view that representation already made by the petitioner needs consideration by the respondents in the light of the circular and other relevant material inasmuch as the charge sheet was served in the year 2010 and there is nothing on record to indicate that matter has further been proceeded after representation by the petitioner. In the aforesaid ground, I am not inclined to interfere in the charge sheet at this stage, rather, respondents are expected to take a proper view in the matter as to whether enquiry in the matter should proceed or not. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation and notice for demand of justice submitted by the petitioner at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶26

bnsharma

¶27

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶28

(BN Sharma)

¶29

PS-cum-JW

Ghisu Singh v. State Personnel Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghisu Singh v. State Personnel Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shradhanand Kashyap Vs Secretary Rural Develop Anr.

Smt Leela Sharma Vs Directore Local Bodies and Ors.

Raghu Nath Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Urf Rangeela Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Lekhraj Shrichandani Vs State Bank of India Mumbai and a