Yogendra Kumar Gupta Vs Raj.State Hotels Corporation L

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Chairman Managing Director-cum-Disciplinary Authority of Rajasthan State Hotels Corporation Limited, Jaipur, whereby recovery of Rs.3.17 lakhs is directed to be effected from the petitioner on account of loss caused by him to the Corporation.

¶14

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation on 01.03.1970. He was promoted to the post of Manager Grade-II in the year 1997 and while holding the post of Manager Grade-II, he was granted voluntary retirement under the Golden Hand-Shake Scheme prevailing in respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 31.07.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after retirement of the petitioner, instead of releasing the retiral

¶15

[2026:RJ-JP:2455]

¶16

[CW-3952/2007]

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

dues of the petitioner, for which he was otherwise entitled as per the rules and regulations prevailing in the Corporation, quite arbitrarily vide order dated 30.12.2000, recovery of Rs.7,49,623/was directed to be effected against the petitioner and quite lesser amount towards the terminal dues of the petitioner was released by the respondents.

¶19

Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2002, which was decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2006 directing the respondents to release the outstanding retiral dues of the petitioner along with interest. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-Corporation filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 342/2006, which was disposed of by the Division Bench with directions to the respondent-Corporation to conduct an enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and to take further action as per the report of enquiry.

¶20

Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the respondentCorporation constituted a Committee of as many as three officers. In the enquiry report dated 27.09.2006, it has been mentioned that on account of incomplete entries, it was not possible for the committee to determine the extent of responsibility of the different officials. However, only on account of the fact that the petitioner was a Storekeeper at the relevant time, without examining the role of other officials involved for maintaining the record, the Enquiry Committee gave findings against the petitioner. Copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 20.10.2006. Although, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation pointing out that the enquiry report was

[2026:RJ-JP:2455]

[CW-3952/2007]

(3 of 5)

cryptic, laconic and contains findings, which are irrational, perverse and based on no evidence. However, ignoring the representation of the petitioner, vide order dated 07.02.2007, directions were given to adjust Rs.3.17 lakhs out of the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that order dated 07.02.2007 reveals that the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent-Corporation have travelled under wrong assumption that the petitioner did not submit any representation against the enquiry report whereas, the representation was submitted by the petitioner and the same is duly acknowledged by the officials of respondent-Corporation. On the basis of all facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thus, the impugned order dated 07.02.2007 has been passed in disregard of principles of natural justice and by not providing complete opportunity of defence to the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary defended the order dated 07.02.2007 and submitted that in compliance of directions given by the Division Bench in order dated 05.07.2006, a detailed enquiry was conducted revealing that the petitioner was solely responsible for maintaining the record hence, the entire liability to bear the loss caused to the Corporation would be of the petitioner. It was further submitted that while sending copy of enquiry report to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.10.2006, he was directed to submit his representation within a period of 15 days however, the petitioner utterly failed to submit his representation within a period of 15 days and it was rather submitted later on 23.11.2006. Hence, it

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:2455]

[CW-3952/2007]

was not considered by the Chairman and Managing Director-cumDisciplinary Authority of respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the procedure has not been flouted by the respondent-Corporation and due opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

It is undisputed fact that earlier, when order of recovery was challenged by the petitioner, the litigation ended with the order dated 05.07.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the respondents to hold an enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

Although, enquiry has been conducted by the respondent-Corporation by constituting Committee of three members yet, the report submitted by the Committee fails to give any valid conclusion to infer that the petitioner was solely responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation and rather the findings are that on account of incomplete entries, the Committee was unable to assess the proportional liability of different officials. 11. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had filed representation against the findings of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer however, his only objection was that vide letter dated 20.10.2006, the petitioner was directed to submit his representation against the enquiry report within a period of 15 days, but he filed it much later than the period of 15 days.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that such representation dated 23.11.2006 was filed by the

[2026:RJ-JP:2455]

[CW-3952/2007]

(5 of 5)

petitioner much before passing of order dated 07.02.2007. Learned counsel for the respondent also failed to show any statutory provision prescribing limitation to file representation only within a period of 15 days, against the report of Enquiry Officer. Under these circumstances, no justified reasons could be given by the learned counsel for the respondent for not considering the representation filed by the petitioner except the whimsical attitude of the officer of the Corporation.

¶39

In the light of above discussion, it is clear that order dated 07.02.2007 has been passed on the basis of non-conclusive enquiry report where findings have been given on the basis of surmises and conjectures and even the representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report although, duly received by the respondents much earlier than passing of impugned order dated 07.02.2007, yet ignored by the respondent. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set-aside the order dated 07.02.2007. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled for his entire terminal benefits. Respondents shall pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.

¶40

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶41

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶42

NEERU/87

Yogendra Kumar Gupta v. Raj.State Hotels Corporation L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Gupta v. Raj.State Hotels Corporation L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Nan Vs Amar Singh and Ors.

Uma Pareek Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Suresh Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rukmani Devi Private Iti Vs Shri Kuldeep Ranka

Jeetram S/O Sh. Rohitash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Shail Bhardwaj Vs State Education Educationors