District Bharatpur v. Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

: Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Ms. Sweekriti Sharma Ms. Anjali Sharma Mr. Devang Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

17.04.2025

25.04.2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity and legality of order dated 19.04.2002 issued by the Director, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as the consequential order dated

20.04.2002 issued by the Chief Medical Officer Incharge, Community Health Centre, Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby services of the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician have been terminated.

2. Facts in brief are that in memo of petition filed by the petitioner, he has stated that he owns to his credit qualification of Higher Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer [2025:RJ-JP:16497] (2 of 5) [CW-2658/2002] obtained by him in the year 1983. Thereafter, he has secured Diploma in Medical Laboratory from Cochin School of Paramedical, Kerla, in the year 1985. It has been averred by the petitioner that after acquiring the aforesaid qualification, he got himself registered with the Employment Exchange. On receiving a requisition, the Employment Exchange sponsored the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lab Technician and accordingly after considering the eligibility, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Technician vide order dated

03.07.1986 initially, on temporary basis for a period of six months in pay scale prescribed in the aforesaid appointment order. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter, his services were confirmed on the post of Lab Technician. He has also submitted that vide order dated 19.12.1996, after completing 9 years of service, he was granted first selection grade and his pay fixation was done by giving such benefit of selection scale.

3. The petitioner has stated that all of sudden abruptly without giving any notice whatsoever or without conducting any enquiry, one order dated 19.04.2002 was issued by the Director, Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on the assumption that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Lab Technician and he had obtained service on the basis of misleading facts and accordingly, his services were terminated. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 19.04.2002, consequential order dated 20.04.2002 has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer Incharge, Deeg, District Bharatpur. Petitioner has stated that the aforesaid termination order is quite arbitrary and illegal and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:16497] (3 of 5) [CW-2658/2002]

4. While issuing notices in the instant writ petition, this Court granted interim order dated 22.05.2002 allowing the petitioner to continue on the aforesaid post. In compliance of the Court’s order, the petitioner was continued on the aforesaid post.

5. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition in order to oppose the writ petition and have pointed out therein that the certificate of qualification of Diploma from Cochin School of Paramedical, Kerla was not a recognized qualification and thus, the petitioner had produced certificate of non-recognized qualification showing himself to be eligible for the post of Lab Technician. As per respondents as the petitioner, on account of not possessing requisite qualification, was not eligible for the aforesaid Post, therefore, issuing any show cause notice or conducting enquiry would be an empty formality. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was prayed to be rejected by the respondents.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition, in which, it was mentioned that the respondents have utterly failed to place any material on record to show that the Diploma issued by Cochin School of Paramedical, Kerla, was not a recognized qualification. Hence, there was no occasion for the respondents to assume that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Lab Technician on the post of such qualification.

7. I have perused the record of the writ petition and have also heard learned counsel for both the parties.

8. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that during pendency of the writ petition, on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner has retired from the service of the respondents and he has also been granted [2025:RJ-JP:16497] (4 of 5) [CW-2658/2002] pension, commutation, gratuity and other retiral benefits. He has also submitted his retirement order and the orders relating to grant of post retiral benefits during arguments, which have been taken on record.

9. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.07.1986. His services were confirmed and even benefit of selection grade and other benefits were also granted to him. The respondents have also not disputed the fact that before issuing orders dated

19.04.2002 and 20.04.2002, they have neither issued any show cause notice to the petitioner nor have conducted any enquiry whatsoever.

10. Merely, stating in the termination letter that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Lab Technician and he had obtained the service by giving misleading of information would not justify the action of the respondents.

11. After 16 years of appointment, even if the allegations were relating to recognition of qualification possessed by the petitioner, which may also relate to his eligibility to the aforesaid post, such drastic action with regard to termination could not have been undertaken by the respondents without following the procedure established in law.

12. Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed on a substantive post and was also holding lien on the said post. In such circumstance, even if the conduct of the petitioner, may be relating to the period prior to his date of appointment or subsequent thereto, was howsoever questionable and irrespective of the seriousness of allegations levelled against him, the [2025:RJ-JP:16497] (5 of 5) [CW-2658/2002] provisions of conducting enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 cannot be ignored by the respondents before terminating the services of the petitioners.

13. However, in the instant case, not even a show cause notice, much less than a detailed departmental enquiry, was issued by the respondents in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for explaining his conduct. Hence, quite apparently the termination orders dated 19.04.2002 and 20.04.2002 issued by the respondents are patently arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

14. As stated by counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to interim order granted earlier in the instant writ petition, the petitioner continued in service and on attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired w.e.f. 31.05.2024 and thereafter all the post retiral benefits have also been given to him.

15. In view of the above, on account of flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as for not following the due procedure of departmental enquiry by not conducting any departmental enquiry whatsoever, prior to issuing termination orders dated 19.04.2002 and 20.04.2002, the impugned termination orders are held to be illegal and same are hereby quashed and set aside.

16. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. He is also entitled for all consequential benefits.

17. Stay application, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. pcg/4 (ANAND SHARMA),J