The High Court held that respondents failed to comply with a prior order mandating a departmental inquiry regarding the petitioners' termination.后果 directing the inquiry to be completed within two months and imposing costs.
Direction to complete the departmental inquiry within two months and pay costs of Rs.10,000.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 855/2012
1.Ram Lal S/o Sh. Laxman Nogya, aged 45 years, residentof Mukam Post Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
2.The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Ms. RR Kanwar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
14/08/2018
hearing of the case.
(2 of 5)
[CW-855/2012]
“1. The respondents may kindly be directed to take back the petitioners in service and they may be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III and in accordance thereof, the services of the petitioners may be considered as regular w.e.f. 30.09.1991 and accordingly all the consequential benefits may be allowed to the petitioners.
(3 of 5)
[CW-855/2012]
(4 of 5)
[CW-855/2012]
the respondents have miserably failed to comply with the order
dated 23.05.2002 passed by this Court in Nand Kishore (supra), by not holding any fresh inquiry or passing consequential orders for very long period.
“The impugned orders dated 25.08.1992 (Annex. And 7) passed by respondent No.1 whereby services of the petitioners were terminated are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to hold the departmental inquiry as per the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961 against the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to complete the enquiry within six months from today and the petitioners are directed to cooperate in the enquiry. Keeping in mind the fact that the petitioners are not in service with effect from 25.08.1992 at this stage, this Court is not going to give direction to the respondents to take back the petitioners on duty unless enquiry is concluded. The question of taking back the petitioners in service and
(5 of 5)
[CW-855/2012]
the question of back wages etc. will be decided only after the departmental enquiry is over and on the fate of the enquiry.”
(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
sudheer
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents are liable for non-compliance with the earlier order directing a fresh inquiry and passing appropriate orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Kishore Acharya & Anr. Vs. Vikas Adhikari & OrsExplained¶8
Nand Kishore Acharya & Anr. Vs. Vikas Adhikari & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6283/1992)
Ram Lal
Nand Kishore Acharya
State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department
Director, Elementary Education
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh
District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Chittorgarh
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
