Allowed

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2019SAW/569/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the removal order against an employee wrongfully appointed in the ex-serviceman quota, upholding the department's decision without mandatory disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Discussed dismissal; set forth liberty to approach respondents for no objection certificate before removal order is finalized.

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 569/2019

¶3

With

¶4

D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5703/2019 In

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1571/2019

¶6

Akash Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of A-508 Rampura Road Garden-4, Patrakar Colony, Jaipur, Permanent Resident Of 254/1, Nehru Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh- 250001.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Cmd.

¶9

The Executive Director (Corporation Affairs), Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

The General Manager (Civil), Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶15

Judgment

¶16

09/04/2019

¶17

Facts of the present case are quite simple and not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the quota of ex-servicemen in which quota there were two posts. The petitioner-appellant could secure appointment in that quota with merit of only 43.25% marks. The cut-off of the open category (general), to which the petitioner-appellant

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-569/2019]

¶20

otherwise belongs, was 66.75%. The petitioner-appellant would not get appointment but for being treated as ex-serviceman.

¶21

Grievance of the petitioner-appellant, as per the learned counsel, is that he never claimed himself to be ex-serviceman and the respondents on their own appointed him in that category. If at all the respondents wanted him to be removed, they ought to have subjected him to regular disciplinary proceedings after providing him opportunity to defend himself.

¶22

Stand of the respondents as evident from their counter affidavit is that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner-appellant to produce the document to substantiate his category in which he was appointed. On 23.10.2018 he was given a letter to submit the documents, of which he submitted a reply dated 30.10.2018 seeking 15 days time on the premise that his parents were suffering with some ailment. The respondent Corporation, taking a sympathetic view, granted him further 15 days time upto 13.11.2018 but instead of submitting any document, the petitioner-appellant submitted a letter dated 14.11.2018 by which he tried to deviate the issue by levying false allegations of signing on blank papers and requested to quash the letter dated 23.10.2018 of the respondents. The respondents submitted that they have invoked Rule 4.12 and 4.12(b) of the JMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeals Rules, 2017. Rule 4.12 inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4.8 or 4.9 or 4.10, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 4.4 in any of the circumstances mentioned therein. Rule 4.12(b) provides that where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[SAW-569/2019]

¶25

in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the Rules.

¶26

In fact, no enquiry was required to be held because the petitioner-appellant himself was not in a position to dispute his status as a person belonging to open category (general). Whoever may be responsible enabling him to secure appointment, the appointment was apparently secured by way of manipulations or else it was not possible for him to secure the appointment with only 43.25% marks as the cut-off marks of the open category (general), to which the petitioner-appellant actually belongs, was 66.75%.

¶27

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that he should be permitted to approach the respondents offering to resign as according to him 17 more candidates in their status have resigned the services of the respondent Corporation. Thus he wants to seek ‘no objection certificate’ for procuring employment elsewhere, rather than suffering the order of removal. If the petitioner-appellant approaches the respondents, it is upto them to consider the request of the petitioner-appellant.

¶28

The appeal is dismissed with aforesaid liberty. This also disposes of the stay application.

¶29

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶30

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ

¶31

//Jaiman//186

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

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

Thakur Shiv Raj Singh and Ors. Vs Mr Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Kunal Rawat Advocate S/O Late Shri Ganpat Swaroop Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Panna Lal Pareek Son of Shri Kesar Dev Vs State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Daulat Ram Sawlani

State of Rajasthan Vs Rajdhani Veterinary Institute

Rambabu Son of Shri Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan