Allowed

Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Meena Son of Shri B.N. Meena

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024CW/10439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Tribunal erred in allowing a re-inquiry order appeal after the respondent was convicted and dismissed. Conviction extinguished the cause of action for the re-inquiry challenge. The Tribunal order was set aside. Liberty granted to revive the OA on appeal of conviction outcome.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside; Liberty granted to move an application for revival of O.A. before the Tribunal if the conviction is under appeal.

Union of India Vs Santosh Kumar Meena Son of Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27647-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10439/2022

¶4

Union Of India through its Secretary, Department Of Telecommunications, Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001

¶5

The Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications And Information Technology, Government Of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001

¶6

The Under Secretary (VT), Government Of India, Ministry Of Communications And Information Technology, Department Of Telecommunications, (Vigilance-II Section) 919, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Santosh Kumar Meena Son Of Shri B.n. Meena, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of G-149, Tirupati Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur And That Time Working as ADG-II, Office Of DDG, Term Cell, Rajasthan, Sanchar Bhawan, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur. Presently Dismissed From Service.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

03/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶15

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:27647-DB]

¶17

[CW-10439/2022]

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

(for short ‘Tribunal’) allowing the Original Application No.552/2015 (O.A.) of the respondent.

¶20

The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed in the Indian Telecom Services and on formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) was posted on deemed deputation in BSNL. In the year 2005, the respondent was assigned duties by formation of Committee for empanelment of hospital for the BSNL employees. The respondent was caught red-handed in a trap case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and was served charge-sheet. The competent authority decided to inquire into the charges. The inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. However, the competent authority found that there was delay and procedural lapse and ordered re-inquiry vide order dated 18.08.2015. Aggrieved of the order, respondent preferred O.A. before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the O.A., the respondent was convicted on 16.09.2019. The respondent on the basis of conviction was dismissed from service on 11.01.2021. The petitioners filed Misc. Application before the Tribunal for bringing on record the conviction and dismissal order, prayer was that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed in view of the conviction. The Tribunal decided O.A. of the respondent in terms of the earlier O.A. decided of two officials of the BSNL who were also accused in the trap case. The O.A. was allowed and re-inquiry order was set aside. The department was given liberty to take decision as to whether to pursue the departmental action or not. Further, it was ordered that proceedings be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy. Aggrieved of the decision, the present petition.

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:27647-DB]

¶22

[CW-10439/2022]

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not at parity with applicants in O.A. Nos.666/2016 and 28/2017. Those employees were acquitted in the criminal proceedings and were in service whereas, the respondent was convicted and at the time of hearing of the O.A., was dismissed from service on account of conviction. Contention is that there was no occasion for the department at that stage to take decision as to whether to pursue with the departmental proceedings or not.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent should have been treated similarly in departmental proceedings. as given to the applicants in O.A. Nos. 666/2016 and 28/2017.

¶26

The cause of action for the respondent to challenge the reinquiry order had ceased to exist consequent to conviction and dismissal of service due to conviction. The Tribunal on the date of deciding the O.A. had no occasion to go into the validity of reinquiry order. The Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the respondent was no longer in service and was dismissed.

¶27

The parity sought by the respondent with the applicants in O.A. Nos.666/2016 and 28/2017 is ill founded. The respondent was convicted whereas the applicants in two O.A. were acquitted giving benefit of doubt.

¶28

It would be appropriate to note that order of re-inquiry would become effective in case the respondent is acquitted in the criminal case or succeeds in challenge to the order of dismissal. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal qua the respondent is set aside.

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:27647-DB]

¶30

[CW-10439/2022]

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

However, considering that the conviction of the respondent is subject matter of appeal, the respondent is granted liberty to move an application for revival of O.A. before the Tribunal in case need so arises.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Simple Kumawat /68

Whether Reportable: Yes

Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Meena Son of Shri B.N. Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Meena Son of Shri B.N. Meena

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

Anuj Kumar S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs the Income Tax Officer

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Vs Shri Rajendra Shringi

State of Rajasthan Vs Z.A. Khan Son of Lt. S.A. Khan

Ganga Ram Choudhary S/O Narayana Choudhary Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Hemant Kumar Koushik (Deceased) Vs Income Tax Officer

Vijay Laxmi Shiksha Samiti Vs Income Tax Officer