Allowed

Om Prakash v. Avvnl Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2023CW/2978/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits granted to a technical helper. The Court held that the administrative order was illegal as it was passed without issuing a show-cause notice, failing to record reasons, and denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before imposing adverse civil consequences.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.02.2018 withdrawing ACP benefits is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.

Om Prakash Vs Avvnl Ajmer and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:19268]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2978/2018

¶4

Om Prakash S/o Sh. Nana Lal Sharma, Resident Of - Bamankhedi, Post- Khodip, Tehsil- Bhadesar, DistrictChittorgarh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Ajmer.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer O And M, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Chittorgarh.

¶9

The Assistant Engineer Rural, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

03/07/2023

¶15

The matter comes up on board for considering the application under article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents seeking vacation of interim order dated 27.02.2018 passed by this Court.

¶16

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length this Court deemed it appropriate to decide the writ petition itself, instead of deciding the application for vacation of interim order, as the controversy lies in a very narrow compass.

¶17

Facts of the case narrated briefly are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Helper vide order dated

[2023:RJ-JD:19268]

[CW-2978/2018]

(2 of 3)

24.08.2007 whereafter he was given benefit of first ACP (Assured Career Progression) vide order dated 22.12.2016.

¶22

Said benefit of ACP was however, withdrawn by order dated 12.02.2018. Mr. Pitaliya, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order dated 12.02.2018 withdrawing the benefit already granted to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶23

Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has concealed the factum of criminal case pending against him, for which the benefit of ACP granted to him was withdrawn. It was also pointed out that a notice dated 13.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

So far as respondents’ contention regarding the notice dated 13.12.2017 is concerned, the same is factually incorrect inasmuch as said notice has been addressed to Assistant Engineer and not to the petitioner. Apart from the above, the respondents have not been able to produce any material showing that any opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner.

¶25

It is the settled proposition of law that before passing any order carrying adverse civil consequences, the concerned candidate/petitioner is required to be heard. It is to be noted that while passing the order oppugned, the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the order impugned does not contain the reason as to why the benefit of

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:19268]

[CW-2978/2018]

ACP already granted to the petitioner on 22.12.2016 is being sought to be withdrawn.

¶30

If the respondents were of the view that the petitioner had concealed the factum of criminal case pending against him and in the teeth of pending criminal case the benefits of ACP were to be recalled, they were under a legal obligation to issue a show cause notice indicating the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The same has admittedly not been done.

¶31

The present writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

Respondents shall be free to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall be entitled to file a reply to the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the response filed by the petitioner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

¶33

If any order prejudicial to the petitioner’s right is passed by the respondents, he shall be free to take up his remedies against such order.

¶34

The present petition stands allowed as indicated above.

¶35

The stay application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶37

28-AbhishekS/-

Om Prakash v. Avvnl Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. Avvnl Ajmer and Ors.

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

Gopal Lal Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Bhaganaram Vs Tulcharam

Teena Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Noor Mohd. Qureshi Vs State and Ors.

Gopal Ram Vs State and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Damor Vs State of Rajasthan