Madar, Ajmer v. Executive Director

: Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025

1. Aggrieved by charge-sheet dated 17.06.2009 issued by the Chief Manager, Central Bus Stand Depot Ajmer (Rajasthan), whereby by levelling allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, departmental proceedings under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been instituted.

2. Bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that it was in respect of one appointment letter dated 10.10.1996, whereby one Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Sh. Krishan Gopal was appointed on compassionate grounds in place of deceased- [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (2 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] employee Sh. Kishan Gopal. The aforesaid order was issued pursuant to decision dated 28.05.1996 taken by Board of respondent-Corporation and letter dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Executive Manager (Administration) of R.S.R.T.C. and in compliance thereof Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot signed and sent for training the aforesaid appointee vide order dated 10.10.1996.

3. After completion of training, order dated 05.05.1999 was issued by the General Manager (Bus Body), whereby posting was given to aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi at Ajmer Depot. In compliance of aforesaid order, Smt. Pushpa Devi submitted an application permitting her to join at Ajmer Depot on 08.05.1999.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the petitioner was limited to accept joining of aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi in compliance of aforesaid orders dated 10.10.1996 and 05.06.1999 passed by the Superior Officers.

5. However, she has been charge-sheeted with the allegations that while allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi pursuant to orders, she did not inquire into the facts that the deceased Sh. Kishan Gopal Sharma was a daily wages employee and his dependents were not eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment in regular pay scale and could have been granted appointment, if any, only as daily wagers. However, she failed to point out such anomaly to the higher authorities.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that firstly in respect of alleged incident of the year 1999, the charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner after ten years on 17.06.2009 and in the meanwhile no action was taken either against the authorities who issued the orders dated 10.10.1996 or 05.05.1999 [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (3 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] of which the petitioner had simply made compliance to the extent of permitting to Smt. Pushpa Devi to join.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that delay of ten years in issuing charge-sheet in itself is fatal and no inquiry whatsoever under Rule 16 could have been instituted against the petitioner after such a long time gap.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire process, the petitioner who was holding the post of clerk at the relevant time has been made scape goat and no charge-sheet has been given to higher authorities, whereas the Chief Manager, Central Bus Stand Depot, Ajmer (Rajasthan) while providing information to the petitioner with regard to movement of file for grant of compassionate appointment to aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi, has given the entire detail, which shows that the order dated

05.05.1999 was passed by the General Manager, (Bus Body) pursuant to earlier order dated 10.10.1996 issued by the Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot. Bare perusal of the order dated

10.10.1996 would make it clear that while taking decision to grant compassionate appointment to Smt. Pushpa Devi, the Board was conscious to the fact that her husband was a daily wager on the date of his death and thereafter a posting order was issued by the Chief Manager (Bus Body) on 05.05.1999, it was shown that the Smt. Pushpa Devi was appointed on probation of one year on the post of Apostor. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner had no other option other than allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi to join in compliance of orders passed by higher authorities.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that to the best of his knowledge, no charge-sheet whatsoever was [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (4 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] issued by the respondent-Corporation to the Chief Manager (Bus Body), Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot and Manager Operation, Ajmer Depot and another Officers who were the authors of the original orders, of which the petitioner was simply required to make compliance.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the entire action reveals malice of the charge-sheet issuing authority, who has simply acted on the dotted lines drawn by the higher authority in order to save skin of higher officers and to sacrifice the petitioner at the cost of higher authorities.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit that the petitioner being the clerk was responsible for verifying the entire record including the fact as to whether appointment has rightly been given to Smt. Pushpa Devi or not.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that Late husband of Smt. Pushpa Devi was simply a daily wager, hence she could not have been given regular appointment and was eligible only for appointment as a daily wager, but despite the order passed by the higher authorities, the petitioner failed to point out such grave anomaly in the order passed earlier by the General Manager. Thus, inaction of the petitioner is a serious misconduct in comparison to action of issuing orders by the General Manager, who is simply an in-charge of the appointment process.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that scope of interference in the charge-sheet issued for initiation of disciplinary inquiry is very limited and this Court cannot interfere [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (5 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] in the matter at this stage and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. Bare perusal of the different orders placed on record would make it clear that the appointee Smt. Pushpa Devi went to join before the petitioner only after issuance of posting order dated 05.05.1999. At the time of allowing for joining, the petitioner was supposed to look into the posting order as well as the details of the person in order to verify his/her identification. The aforesaid order clearly reveals that the appointment was given on the probation of one year and accordingly while allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi to join, entries were made by the petitioner as per the details of the order.

16. Looking to the hierarchy of the officers and the lower post of the petitioner in the ladder of hierarchy, she was not supposed to revise the orders. Quite surprisingly, even if at a subsequent stage the aforesaid anomaly in issuing wrong appointment order emerged and was brought to the knowledge of the higher authorities, even then in such circumstances instead of issuing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet to the higher authorities who has issued such anomalous order, singling out the petitioner could raise a reasonable question over the bona fides of the respondents. Clearly, in the instant matter, despite there being no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, she has been made scape goat.

17. Even otherwise, as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (6 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SCC 1308 issuance of charge-sheet after a considerable delay in itself is a ground of quashing the charge-sheet. In the instant case, the alleged charges were of the year 1999 and charge-sheet was issued in the year 2009 after a delay of ten years for which no explanation whatsoever has been given in reply to the writ petition by the respondent-Corporation.

18. In view of above discussion, action of issuing charge- sheet against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is held as arbitrary, malicious and despotic, therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

19. It has been informed during the course of arguments that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and the instant writ petition is being pursued by his legal heir. On account of the pendency of the impugned charge-sheet, the petitioner although retired on 31.01.2011, yet was not granted final pension and other retiral benefits. It is hereby directed that consequent upon of quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, legal heir of the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. Since, the charge-sheet was issued malafidely, therefore, in peculiar circumstances of this case, legal heir of the petitioner will also be entitled for the interest @ 6 per cent per annum till the realization of actual benefits of service of the petitioner.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed.

21. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. DAKSH/16 (ANAND SHARMA),J

: Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025

1. Aggrieved by charge-sheet dated 17.06.2009 issued by the Chief Manager, Central Bus Stand Depot Ajmer (Rajasthan), whereby by levelling allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, departmental proceedings under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been instituted.

2. Bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that it was in respect of one appointment letter dated 10.10.1996, whereby one Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Sh. Krishan Gopal was appointed on compassionate grounds in place of deceased- [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (2 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] employee Sh. Kishan Gopal. The aforesaid order was issued pursuant to decision dated 28.05.1996 taken by Board of respondent-Corporation and letter dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Executive Manager (Administration) of R.S.R.T.C. and in compliance thereof Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot signed and sent for training the aforesaid appointee vide order dated 10.10.1996.

3. After completion of training, order dated 05.05.1999 was issued by the General Manager (Bus Body), whereby posting was given to aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi at Ajmer Depot. In compliance of aforesaid order, Smt. Pushpa Devi submitted an application permitting her to join at Ajmer Depot on 08.05.1999.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the petitioner was limited to accept joining of aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi in compliance of aforesaid orders dated 10.10.1996 and 05.06.1999 passed by the Superior Officers.

5. However, she has been charge-sheeted with the allegations that while allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi pursuant to orders, she did not inquire into the facts that the deceased Sh. Kishan Gopal Sharma was a daily wages employee and his dependents were not eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment in regular pay scale and could have been granted appointment, if any, only as daily wagers. However, she failed to point out such anomaly to the higher authorities.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that firstly in respect of alleged incident of the year 1999, the charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner after ten years on 17.06.2009 and in the meanwhile no action was taken either against the authorities who issued the orders dated 10.10.1996 or 05.05.1999 [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (3 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] of which the petitioner had simply made compliance to the extent of permitting to Smt. Pushpa Devi to join.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that delay of ten years in issuing charge-sheet in itself is fatal and no inquiry whatsoever under Rule 16 could have been instituted against the petitioner after such a long time gap.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire process, the petitioner who was holding the post of clerk at the relevant time has been made scape goat and no charge-sheet has been given to higher authorities, whereas the Chief Manager, Central Bus Stand Depot, Ajmer (Rajasthan) while providing information to the petitioner with regard to movement of file for grant of compassionate appointment to aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Devi, has given the entire detail, which shows that the order dated

05.05.1999 was passed by the General Manager, (Bus Body) pursuant to earlier order dated 10.10.1996 issued by the Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot. Bare perusal of the order dated

10.10.1996 would make it clear that while taking decision to grant compassionate appointment to Smt. Pushpa Devi, the Board was conscious to the fact that her husband was a daily wager on the date of his death and thereafter a posting order was issued by the Chief Manager (Bus Body) on 05.05.1999, it was shown that the Smt. Pushpa Devi was appointed on probation of one year on the post of Apostor. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner had no other option other than allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi to join in compliance of orders passed by higher authorities.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that to the best of his knowledge, no charge-sheet whatsoever was [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (4 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] issued by the respondent-Corporation to the Chief Manager (Bus Body), Chief Manager, Ajmer Depot and Manager Operation, Ajmer Depot and another Officers who were the authors of the original orders, of which the petitioner was simply required to make compliance.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the entire action reveals malice of the charge-sheet issuing authority, who has simply acted on the dotted lines drawn by the higher authority in order to save skin of higher officers and to sacrifice the petitioner at the cost of higher authorities.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit that the petitioner being the clerk was responsible for verifying the entire record including the fact as to whether appointment has rightly been given to Smt. Pushpa Devi or not.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that Late husband of Smt. Pushpa Devi was simply a daily wager, hence she could not have been given regular appointment and was eligible only for appointment as a daily wager, but despite the order passed by the higher authorities, the petitioner failed to point out such grave anomaly in the order passed earlier by the General Manager. Thus, inaction of the petitioner is a serious misconduct in comparison to action of issuing orders by the General Manager, who is simply an in-charge of the appointment process.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that scope of interference in the charge-sheet issued for initiation of disciplinary inquiry is very limited and this Court cannot interfere [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (5 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] in the matter at this stage and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. Bare perusal of the different orders placed on record would make it clear that the appointee Smt. Pushpa Devi went to join before the petitioner only after issuance of posting order dated 05.05.1999. At the time of allowing for joining, the petitioner was supposed to look into the posting order as well as the details of the person in order to verify his/her identification. The aforesaid order clearly reveals that the appointment was given on the probation of one year and accordingly while allowing Smt. Pushpa Devi to join, entries were made by the petitioner as per the details of the order.

16. Looking to the hierarchy of the officers and the lower post of the petitioner in the ladder of hierarchy, she was not supposed to revise the orders. Quite surprisingly, even if at a subsequent stage the aforesaid anomaly in issuing wrong appointment order emerged and was brought to the knowledge of the higher authorities, even then in such circumstances instead of issuing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet to the higher authorities who has issued such anomalous order, singling out the petitioner could raise a reasonable question over the bona fides of the respondents. Clearly, in the instant matter, despite there being no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, she has been made scape goat.

17. Even otherwise, as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh [2025:RJ-JP:33341] (6 of 6) [CW-10140/2009] & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SCC 1308 issuance of charge-sheet after a considerable delay in itself is a ground of quashing the charge-sheet. In the instant case, the alleged charges were of the year 1999 and charge-sheet was issued in the year 2009 after a delay of ten years for which no explanation whatsoever has been given in reply to the writ petition by the respondent-Corporation.

18. In view of above discussion, action of issuing charge- sheet against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is held as arbitrary, malicious and despotic, therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

19. It has been informed during the course of arguments that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and the instant writ petition is being pursued by his legal heir. On account of the pendency of the impugned charge-sheet, the petitioner although retired on 31.01.2011, yet was not granted final pension and other retiral benefits. It is hereby directed that consequent upon of quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, legal heir of the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. Since, the charge-sheet was issued malafidely, therefore, in peculiar circumstances of this case, legal heir of the petitioner will also be entitled for the interest @ 6 per cent per annum till the realization of actual benefits of service of the petitioner.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed.

21. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. DAKSH/16 (ANAND SHARMA),J