Manak Chand Khandelwal v. Rajasthan Vidhut Parsaran Nigam

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 876/2001 Manak Chand Khandelwal S/o Late Shri V.R. Khandelwal, agedabout 56 years, resident of L-20, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road,Durgapura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Vidhut Parsaran Nigam, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, R.C. Dave Marg, Vidhut Bhawan Jyoti Nagar,Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak RastogiFor Respondent(s): Ms. Manju Dave HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/05/2024 1.The present petition is filed with the following prayers:-“i) the writ petition filed by the petitioner maykindly be allowed and the relevant record maykindly be called for and be perused by this Hon’bleCourt, if so pleases;“i) the writ petition filed by the petitioner maykindly be allowed and the relevant record maykindly be called for and be perused by this Hon’bleCourt, if so pleases; ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondent may be directed to restore the positionof the petitioner as Executive Engineer from thedate of his reversion treating as if no reversionorder was ever passed with all other consequentialbenefits.respondent may be directed to restore the positionof the petitioner as Executive Engineer from thedate of his reversion treating as if no reversionorder was ever passed with all other consequentialbenefits. iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit, just and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case same may kindly begranted in favour of the petitioner.”deem fit, just and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case same may kindly begranted in favour of the petitioner.” 2.The crux of the instant matter is that the petitioner was appointed as a ‘Junior Engineer’ with the respondent-department in the Year 1971. Thereafter, vide order dated19.08.1992 (Annexure-1) was promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer (E&M) onad-hoc and temporary basis. 3.It is submitted that vide order dated 13.11.1996(Annexure-2), the post in which the petitioner was appointedwas subjected to ‘Reversion’ without any reasonable reason,allegation or without giving any opportunity of being heard. Thepetitioner submitted a representation against the said reversionorder on 16.12.1996 and 27.01.1997, but a deaf ear was givento the said representations. It was only on 29.01.1997, that amemorandum was issued qua the petitioner stating that as perthe inquiry carried out under Regulation No. 7(1) of RSEBEmployees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations,1962, the charge levelled against the petitioner qua his failureto observe the rules, while revising the estimate of 65agriculture consumers of nursery category, wherein a loss uptothe tune of 7.3 lacs was alleged by the respondents. 4.Furthermore, in this regard the petitioner had submitted adetailed reply qua the allegations of the charge-sheet dated28.04.1997 and has categorically denied the said allegations.Moreover, it was submitted that qua the said charge-sheet, thepetitioner has already been exonerated. 5.Vide order dated 31.08.1998, the petitioner was informedthat disciplinary proceedings as per Regulation 6 (Minorpenalties) of the RSEB Rules, 1962 will be initiated qua him.(Annexure-4) 6.In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner hassubmitted that the reversion order qua the petitioner was passed in the year 1996, whereas the charge-sheet was issuedin the year 1997. Hence, the reversion made vide order dated13.11.1996 is perverse and arbitrary in nature. 7.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner hasplaced reliance upon the dictum of judgment of Hon’ble ApexCourt encapsulated in Parshotam Lal Dhingravs. Union ofIndia reported in 1958 AIR (SC) 36. 5.Vide order dated 31.08.1998, the petitioner was informedthat disciplinary proceedings as per Regulation 6 (Minorpenalties) of the RSEB Rules, 1962 will be initiated qua him.(Annexure-4) 6.In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner hassubmitted that the reversion order qua the petitioner was passed in the year 1996, whereas the charge-sheet was issuedin the year 1997. Hence, the reversion made vide order dated13.11.1996 is perverse and arbitrary in nature. 7.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner hasplaced reliance upon the dictum of judgment of Hon’ble ApexCourt encapsulated in Parshotam Lal Dhingravs. Union ofIndia reported in 1958 AIR (SC) 36. 8.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raiseda preliminary objection and has submitted that the instantpetition is not tenable on account of delay and laches as thereversion order was passed in the year 1996 and petition waspreferred in the year 2001. Learned Counsel has submitted that(Annexure-1) i.e. promotion order dated 19.08.1992 was issuedwith the caveat that no right, qua the promotion will be given tothe petitioner as the same was issued only on temporary basis.Therefore, even if there is no allegations or charges specificallymentioned, the order is still valid. 9.Heard and considered. 10.Taking in account, the arguments advanced by counsel forboth the sides, upon perusal of the records and considering thejudgments cited at Bar, the following facts are noteworthy:- 10.1That the petitioner was in regular service ever sinceyear 1971. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.08.1992, he waspromoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post ofExecutive Engineer. It goes without saying that the said order,was for a temporary period and was not assigning any vestedright. 10.2 That the Charge-sheet (Annexure-5), issued in theyear 1998 gives a reflection that the reversion order was passedon account of purported lack of supervision causing financialloss to the respondent-department. Though, it is pertinent tonote that the petitioner has been exonerated from the allegedcharges. 10.3The record reflects that during the course of enquiry,principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem were notfollowed, insofar as no opportunity of being heard and voicingdefense was provided to the petitioner. 10.4That while considering the petitioners case, as perthe Regulation No. 5 of Employees Classification Control andAppeal Regulation, 1962, it is noted that ‘Reversion’ is a majorpenalty as classified under Regulation 5(e) and Regulation 7,which when imposed, mandates the specified procedure to befollowed, wherein, principle of audi alteram partem, issuance ofcharge-sheet etc. is mandatory. 11.In light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, itis evident that when the due procedure is not followed,imposition of a major penalty i.e. reversion is arbitrary and voidab initio. Moreover, the impugned order was issued in the year1996 whereas, the alleged charges/ charge-sheet pertains toyear 1997 and in any possible case, retrospective effect to thealleged charges can not be effectuated. 12.Accordingly, the instant petition ought to be allowed interms of the prayer sought, with all consequential relief. 13.As a result, the petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J ANIL SHARMA /7