Allowed

Ashok Kumar Jain v. State Labour Depors

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2016CW/7950/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows three connected writ petitions challenging a charge-sheet for failure to meet work targets imposed on Labour Inspectors. The Court set aside the charge-sheet due to unexplained delay exceeding ten years and vagueness of allegations regarding target figures.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge-sheet dated 16.04.2015 is set aside on grounds of delay and vagueness; writ petitions allowed.

Ashok Kumar Jain Vs State Labour Depors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R

¶3

(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7099/2015

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri J.P. Sharma, aged 58 years, R/o E-112, Durga Park, Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary cum Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Secretary (DOP), Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Labour Commissioner cum Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Opp. NEI, Hasanpura, Jaipur.

¶11

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7891/2015

¶12

PETITIONER:

¶13

Sangeeta Singh W/o Sh. B.S. Chandela, aged 57 years, R/o A-252, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

VERSUS

(2)

RESPONDENTS:

The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary cum Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

Secretary (DOP), Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

The Labour Commissioner cum Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Opp. NEI, Hasanpura, Jaipur.

¶20

(3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7950/2015

¶21

PETITIONER:

¶22

Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ram Karan Jain, aged 55 years, R/o 240, Gayatri Nagar- B, Maharani Farm, Jaipur, (Raj.).

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary cum Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶26

Secretary (DOP), Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶27

The Labour Commissioner cum Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Opp.

¶28

NEI, Hasanpura, Jaipur.

¶29

DATE:03.10.2016

¶30

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶31

Mr. Mahendra Shah, for the petitioners. Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.

¶32

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the charge-sheet dated 16.04.2015. It is mainly on the ground of inordinate delay and vagueness of the charges.

¶33

The impugned charge-sheet dated 16.04.2015 makes allegation against the petitioner about their failure to complete the target while working on the post of Labour Inspector. The target pertains to year 2002-03 and 2003-04.

¶34

The charge-sheet was served with a delay of ten years or more. The charge-sheet does not reflect the target and how much was achieved by the petitioner with shortfall. In view of above, the charges made against the petitioner are vague.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents

¶36

(4)

¶37

submitted that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in pursuance to the target fixed by “Janlekha Samiti”. They failed to achieve the targets thus charge-sheet was served.

¶38

I find that no reason or explanation of delay has been given. The delay in taking disciplinary action is fetal. It is in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 and also in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 SCC (2) 570. The challenge to the chargesheet on the ground of unexplained delay has been accepted by the Apex Court and, accordingly, it was set aside. The facts of this case are not distinquishable. The unexplained delay in this case is of more than ten years, thus the charge-sheet deserves to be set aside on the ground of delay itself.

¶39

The issue of vagueness of charges has also been raised as they are unspecific. Whenever the allegations are to be made in the charge-sheet, it need to be specific. If the respondents had given targets to the petitioner then were require to specify it with their failure by

¶40

(5)

¶41

giving the details of shortfall. Both the figures are missing in the charge-sheet, thus it seems that the allegation against the petitioner have been made for the sack of it.

¶42

In the light of the discussion aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheet is set aside on the ground of delay and vagueness. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.

¶43

(M.N. BHANDARI),J.

¶44

Sunita/46,47 & 49

Ashok Kumar Jain v. State Labour Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Jain v. State Labour Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Neeraj Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs State Ayurved Departmentors

Dr Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State Ayurved Departmentors

Dr. Piyush Nagar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Yashwant Arya Vs State Agriculture Depors

Dr Saroj Meena and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Bhawani Shankar Vs State Home Departmentors