RAJ KUMAR KAPIL Vs. CHAIRMAN F C I JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in response to advertisement (Annexure-2) applied for the post of Assistant Instructor in the Food Craft Institute, Rajasthan, Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as the 'institute'. THE petitioner was selected as Assistant Instructor in Hotel Reception and Book Keeping in the Institute, vide order dated 4. 12. 1976 (Sch. A) to the writ petition. THE petitioner received a memorandum dated 20th September, 1978 (Schedule-B) alongwith a charge-sheet, to which he submitted a detailed reply, and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules of 1958') as adopted by the Institute. After a show-cause notice, the petitioner was served with an order dated 28. 2. 1983 (Annexure-5 ). THE petitioner challenged the said order in the court of Additional Munsif, under the impression that no appeal lies against the order of dismissal and therefore, lateron, he preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal to the Chairman but the same was not decided even for more than 4-1/2 years and thereafter, the petitioner had to file Writ Petition No. 1826/1983 and this Court allowed the same vide its order dt. 28. 9. 83 directing that the appeal should be decided within one month. Inspite of orders of this Court, the appeal was not decided within one month and the petitioner had to file a contempt petition in this Court. Show cause notice was issued and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the petitioner received a notice for dismissal of the appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 22. 11. 83. But the petitioner was not informed about it. He was informed vide letter dated 12. 6. 84. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 7. 8. 1984. Notices were issued and reply has been filed by the non petitioners.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.

(3.) WE are therefore of the view that the petitioner's dismissal from service on the above count is not proper and therefore, his dismissal order deserves to be quashed.