Dismissed

Gokul Chand Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhagwan Das v. the State Government of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2022CW/1916/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition against a disciplinary order imposing a ten percent pension stoppage for two years. The court held the order was well-reasoned, based on cogent material, and found no illegality warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merit regarding the plea to quash the order dated 10.12.2021.

Gokul Chand Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhagwan Das Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1916/2022

¶3

Gokul Chand Sharma Son Of Late Shri Bhagwan Das, R/o Brahmano Ki Dhani, Post- Babai, Tahsil - Khetri, DistrictJhunjhunu, Raj. At Present R/o Plot Number-1, Maruti Vatika, Shri Maruti Nagar, Laxmi Narayan Pura, Post- Akhepura, V.K.I. Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Government Of Rajasthan, Through His Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur Pin 302005.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarter Lalkothi, Jaipur Pin 302005.

¶8

The Director Of Pension And Pensioners, Welfare Department, Near Amroodo Ka Baag, Jyoti Nagar Lalkothi Jaipur Pin 302005.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh through VC For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

05/02/2022

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the writ petition qua relief No.2.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed to the extent prayed for.

¶16

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2021 whereby, the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of ten percent of pension for a period of two years.

¶17

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was issued a chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules,

¶18

(2 of 3) [CW-1916/2022]

¶19

1958 vide memorandum dated 28.06.2018. The charge-sheet comprised of three charges. After conducting departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 20.11.2019 found all the three charges proved. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner whereupon, he submitted his representation. Vide order impugned dated 10.12.2021, the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of ten percent of his pension for a period of two years.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he did not lodge an FIR as the complainant has refused to submit a written report without consultation with the employees and officers of the Postal Department where he was employed as a temporary employee. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation by him, the neighbors did not support the allegations and hence, no further action was taken. With regard to charge No.2, learned counsel submitted that in the inquest report of the deceased, no suspicion was raised as to cause of death and hence, inquiry was initiated under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. With regard to charge No.3, learned counsel submitted that the protest was politically motivated for which he could not have been held liable by the respondents. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be allowed the order dated 10.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Heard and considered.

¶22

There is no challenge to the fairness of the inquiry proceedings. A perusal of the contents in the daily diary dated 25.08.2014 discloses commission of cognizable offence inasmuch as it contains categorical allegation by the complainant that not only he was beaten by three persons but, he was also looted of

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-1916/2022]

¶25

the money. Provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. as also law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari v.

¶26

Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶27

obliged the petitioner, the Station House Officer at the relevant time, to lodge an FIR even in absence of any written report by the complainant in this regard. Hence, contention of the learned counsel in this regard cannot be countenanced.

¶28

The material on record also reveals that the complainant expired on 07.09.2014 and despite knowledge of the petitioner about the incident dated 23.08.2014, instead of conducting investigation after lodging an FIR, he proceeded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is also reflected that after registration of FIR No.170/2014 in the incident, charge-sheet under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC was filed against the accused persons establishing the incident dated 23.08.2014. The allegation in the charge No.3 is outcome of the gross negligence on the part of petitioner in discharge of his duties as found established under charge No. 1 & 2. Order of the Disciplinary Authority is well reasoned and is based on cogent material on record. He has not only appreciated the material on record, the inquiry report but, also the submissions raised by the delinquent against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that the order dated 10.12.2021 suffers from any such illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction.

¶29

In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶30

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶31

Hemant/33

Gokul Chand Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhagwan Das v. the State Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Chand Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhagwan Das v. the State Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalesh Kumar Mahawar S/O Suresh Chand Mahawar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Preeti Kushwah D/O Harishankar Kushwah Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pramod Kumar Meena S/O Kishan Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Punam Kumari W/O Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivpal Meena Son of Shri Narayan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Cheena Vaishnav D/O Sohan Lal Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan