writ parag kr. agarwal 11.3.2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
1/31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013
Parag Agarwal
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents.
I N D E X
S.No. Pa!"#$%a& Pa'( No.
1 Writ Petition
2 Affidavit in spport of writpetition
! Sta" appli#ation$ Affidavit in spport of sta"
appli#ation%o#ents
Anne're(1)op" of the Sspension letterdated !.*.11
Anne're(2)op" of +eorand dt. 1,.*.11Anne're(!)op" of the order dated -.1.12
Anne're($)op" of the appeal dated 2,.11.12Anne're(,)op" of order dated 21.1.1!, Affidavit in spport of do#ents
/aipr%ated
)onsel for Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
2/31
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013
Parag Agarwal
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents.
B"() S*+o,&"&
0en#e this writ petition.
)onsel for petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
3/31
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013
Parag ar Agarwal aged a3ot "ears resident of
/aipr.
Petitioner
VERSUS
Respondents
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22- OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND
IN THE ATTER OF ARTICLE 1 1- OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
4o
4he 0on53le )hief /sti#e and
his 6ordship5s #opanion /dges of the
0igh )ort of /di#atre for
Rajasthan at /aipr 7en#h /aipr.
A IT PLEASE OUR LORDSHIPS
4he h3le petitioner a3ove naed ost
respe#tfll" 3egs to s3it as nder8
1.4hat the petitioner is the #iti9en of :ndia hen#e
are well #opetent to invo;e the e'traordinar"
jrisdi#tion of this 0on53le )ort nder Arti#le 22-
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
4/31
of the )onstittion of :ndia 3" wa" of filing this
writ petition.
2.4hat the petitioner was initiall" appointed in the
7an; of +aharashtra
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
5/31
not wanted the petitioner to 3e wor;ing at /aipr
7ran#h and altogether #opiling against the
petitioner ipli#ated hi in the present #harges
relating to the e3e99leent of Rs. ! la#s. 4he
petitioner was sspended vide order dated !.*.11
when he was posted in /aipr at +.:.Road 7ran#h
/aipr. :t a" 3e pointed ot that the alleged
e3e99leent too; pla#e on 1.2.21 when
petitioner was %".+anager of the +.:.Road 7ran#h of
the respondent 3an;. :t is alleged that on 1.2.21
petitioner opened three fa;e insta #ard savings 3an;
a##onts with sole intention of #oitting frad.
4he said fa;e a##onts were opened 3" the petitioner
withot naes of the a##ont holders and withot
initial #ash deposit. :t was frther alleged that
petitioner issed hiself and ta;e three insta #ards
of these fa;e a##onts. Petitioner sed these #ards
for withdrawing aont #redited 3" hi fradlentl"
in these fa;e a##onts and for a;ing pr#hases
throgh fradlentl" #redit aont in the fa;e
a##onts. 4he ain allegation was that petitioner
fradlentl" transferred aont fro overde
deposits 3elonging to the different 3enefi#iaries to
the fa;e a##onts opened 3" the petitioner and he
fradlentl" withdrawn an aont of Rs. - la#s fro
the fa;e S7 a##ont ?o. -@*$*21 and destro"ed
the said withdrawal slip frtherore on [email protected]
Rs. ! la#s were transferred fro the fa;e S7
a##ont to one #rrent a##ont 4ep. par;ing a##ont
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
6/31
?o. --$2*$- and on the sae da" he too; #ash
pa"ent of Rs. ! la#s hiself 3" preparing a de3it
vo#her for prported #ash reittan#e to /hotwara
7ran#h whereas it is alleged that there was no
re>isition for #ash reittan#e fro /hotwara 7ran#h
on that da" for #oitting these a#ts of frad he
issed ser :% password of other eplo"ee of the
3ran#h and 3" aforesaid a#ts it is alleged that he
#ased loss of Rs. !-@2$!B( to the 3an;.
$.4hat on 2.*.11 it was dis#overed 3" the 3an;
athorities that a s of Rs.- la#s appro'. is
issing so it was en>ired < after 1@ onths=
wherein all the eplo"ees of the 3an; were en>ired
and vide order dated !.*.11 five eplo"ees were
sspended. :t is pertinent to ention here that ot
of aforeentioned five sspended eplo"ees onl"
petitioner was later on ipli#ated in the #harges
and s3se>entl" terinated fro the servi#e. )op"
of the sspension letter dated !.*.11 is 3eing
pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(41.
,.4hat it was dis#overed a3ot the e3e99led one"C
onl" after the withdrawal of the aont of the
e3e99led one" i.e. Rs. ! la#s that is on [email protected]
to 2.*.11 i.e. for seven da"s s#h one" was not in
the 3an; neither was deposited at the /hotwara
7ran#h and adittedl" no reittan#e of #ash
re>ireent was soght 3" the /hotwara 7ran#h 3t
to the reasons 3est ;nown to the respondent 3an;
e3e99leent of s#h hge aont reained
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
7/31
ndis#overed for a wee;. 7e as it a" petitioner who
was the jnior ost offi#er in the 3ran#h at that
tie was aong the five sspended eplo"ees and was
pressri9ed 3" all the other eplo"ees of the 3an;
as well as 3" the Union 6eaders and he was for#ed
and inflen#ed 3" the other delin>ent sspended
eplo"ees to adit the #harges that he has ade the
aforesaid e3e99leent oreover the earlier
e3e99leent ade on 1.2.21 of opening three fa;e
insta( a##onts was also #l33ed with aforeentioned
e3e99leent of Rs. ! la# and petitioner was for#ed
to a##ept that 3oth the e3e99leent of Rs. - la#s
as well as of ! la#s were done 3" the petitioner
alone. Petitioner nder the pressre and #oer#ion
wrote two #onfession letters whi#h were s#ripted 3"
the 3an; athorities onl" and aditted all the
#harges leveled against hi in those #onfession
letters nder the nde inflen#e of the sperior
offi#ers.
-.4hat on the following dates as Rs. ! la#s were
alread" 3een deposited with the 3an; 3" soe n;nown
sor#e and Rs. - la#s were still issing all the
five sspended eplo"ees #ontri3ted and deposited
the residal aont of Rs. - la#s to the 3an;
wherein the petitioners5 share #ae to 3e of Rs.
@-@B( whi#h were withdrawn 3" the petitioner fro
his salar" a##ont. :t is pertinent to ention here
that on -.*.11 all the aforesaid transa#tions were
ade and on the sae ver" da" petitioner was again
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
8/31
for#ed to write a #onfession letter nder the nde
inflen#e of the sperior offi#ers as well as the
nion leaders of the respondent 3an; wherein
petitioner aditted all the #harges leveled against
hi and also stated that no other 3an; eplo"ee is
involved in the aforesaid e3e99leent. :t wold 3e
ne#essar" to point ot at this pla#e that
#ontri3tion ade 3" the other eplo"ees ot rightl"
proves the fa#t that the" were ver" #h into the
whole #ootion of e3e99leent and jst #over p
their isdeeds the" first tried to settle the atter
3" depositing the one" 3a#; 3t when it was not
appeared to settle down petitioner was ade a
s#apegoat and the whole 3lae was pit#hed pon
petitioner5s head.
.4hat in prsan#e to the a3ove stated #onfession
letter a #harge sheet was spplied to the
petitioner 3" the 3an; as well as #riinal #ase was
also registered against the petitioner onl" a;ing
the sole 3ase of the #onfession petitioner was
provided a eorand of #harges on 1,.*.11 and all
other sspended eplo"ees were e'onerated vide order
dated 1*.2.11. 4he #op" of the eorand of the
#harges dated 1,.*.11 is pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed
asA++($(42.
@.4hat the aforeentioned eorand of #harges was
re#eived 3" the petitioner on 21.*.11 and in
prsan#e of the aforeentioned eorand
petitioner soght 1, da"s e'tension for filing the
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
9/31
repl". :t is h3l" s3itted that s#h letter of
petitioner for e'tension of tie was not e'pedited
and petitioner was not granted an" e'tension in tie
to file repl" vide order dated $.1.11.
:t is pertinent to ention here that petitioner
s3itted a written stateent dated 1*.1.11
e'plaining all the instan#e in detail and e'plaining
that he was ade a s#apegoat in the aforeentioned
instan#e whereas he was a#tall" inno#ent and was
not aware of an" soght of is#ond#t and all the
allegations are false and that petitioner was
wrongl" ipli#ated and has 3een sed 3" the other
3an; eplo"ees in the aforeentioned instan#e as a
s#apegoat. :t is frtherore s3itted that there is
no iota of eviden#e against the petitioner and there
was not even a single do#ent showing the
involveent of petitioner in the alleged #harges.
4he whole #hargesheet was 3ased on the a3ove stated
#onfession onl" apart fro that there are no
allegations against petitioner.
*. 4hat thereafter a dis#iplinar" pro#eeding was
started against petitioner 3ased pon the aforeentioned
#hargesheet. S#h %epartental en>ir" was ere foralit"
and the no fair trial was provided to the petitioner.
1. 4hat dring the en>ir" pro#eedings petitioner was
never provided an" defen#e representation nor was he
provided an" ne#essar" do#ents even pon n n3er of
re>ests ade 3" hi. +oreover a hast" en>ir" was ade
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
10/31
wherein the en>ir" athorit" never #onsidered an"
s3ission ade 3" the petitioner and onl" on the 3asis
of the #onfession ade 3" the petitioner held petitioner
gilt" of all the #harges leveled against hi and
#onse>entl" pnished with reoval fro servi#e. )op" of
the letter as;ing for the do#ents as well as the
defen#e representative are pla#ed on re#ord and are
ar;ed asA++($(43.
11. 4hat En>ir" Offi#er disissed the #ontention of
the petitioner withot appl"ing ind and onl" on the
grond that the petitioner ade #onfessions on two
o##asions and held petitioner gilt" of the e3e99leent
of Rs.!- la#s appro'. and proposed a pnishent of
reoval fro servi#e whereas the trth is entirel"
different as the petitioner was anaging the provident
fnd departent the opening of new insta #ard a##onts
and issing insta #ards in his own favors that too on
fa;e identit" and password of other eplo"ees were wa"
ot his a3it therefore was ipossi3le. :t was never
nder the athorit" of the petitioner he was not a
#opetent athorit" to open an a##ont on his own withot
an" frther athori9ation fro senior offi#ers and
oreover opening s#h a##onts was never nder his wor;
a3it and a##ordingl" no eviden#e are there on re#ord
against petitioner. :t is frtherore s3itted that
petitioner soght perission of the en>ir" offi#er to
prod#e the #larifi#ation letters written 3" the other
delin>ent eplo"ees to the higher athorities on re#ord
3t s#h re>est was trned down 3" the en>ir" offi#er.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
11/31
:t s3itted that other delin>ent eplo"ees
nael"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD have stated in their
letters that the" were well versed with the whole
transa#tion of reittan#e of one" to /hotwara 7ran#h and
the" vide proper pro#edre and athori9ation passed s#h
reittan#e. :t a;es it #r"stal #lear that petitioner was
alafide ipli#ated in the whole fias#o 3" s#h real
#lprits.
:t is frtherore s3itted that as far as the
>estion of e3e99leent of ! la#s is #on#erned
there are no eviden#e against petitioner apart fro
the adission of the #harges ade 3" hi and that
#ertainl" 3" ere persal of the fa#ts it #an 3e
ade ot that a jnior offi#erireent of the other
3ran#h withdraw s#h aont 3" sing fa;e identit"
and password of other eplo"ees and ;ept s#h aont
with hi at hoe withot an" prpose and then re(
deposited s#h aont in the 3an; after lapse of a
wee; and 3e as it a" all this was done 3" a single
person and this was never dis#overed 3" the 3an;.
12. 4hat petitioner pro#eeded an appeal to the appellate
athorit" of the 3an; against the order of the
dis#iplinar" athorit" i.e. eneral +anager5s order dated
-.1.12. )op" of the order dated -.1.12 is 3eing pla#ed
on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(45.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
12/31
1!. 4hat petitioner in his appeal e'plained how he was
ipli#ated and was for#ed to adit all the #harges.
Petitioner filed a detailed appeal dated 2,.11.12 to the
appellate athorit" s#h appeal was disissed 3" the
appellate athorit" withot #onsidering the #ase of the
petitioner. )op" of the appeal dated 2,.11.12 is 3eing
pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(4-.
1$. 4hat the appellate athorit" also disissed the
appeal withot appl"ing his ind and on the grond that
adission of the #harges was ade 3" the petitioner. vide
order dated 21.1.1! appellate athorit" disissed the
appeal of the petitioner and pheld the reoval order
passed 3" the dis#iplinar" athorit". )op" of order dated
21.1.1! is 3eing pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(4
6.
GROUNDS
A. That the en>ir" #ond#ted 3" the respondent is
wholl" illegal ar3itrar" and njstified
therefore deserves to 3e set aside. :t is
s3itted that petitioner #annot 3e said to
have #oitted an" delin>en#" for whi#h the
respondents have pro#eeded against hi and the
allegations are raised on no eviden#e and
therefore the en>ir" deserves to 3e >ashed
and set aside.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
13/31
7. 4hat the entire en>ir" has 3een #on#lded 3"
the investigating offi#er as well as 3" the
appellate athorit" onl" on the 3asis of
adission of #harges ade 3" the delin>ent
eplo"ee i.e. petitioner. :t is s3itted that
there was no dire#t eviden#e against the
petitioner in fa#t there was no eviden#e
against petitioner and onl" on the 3asis of
#onfession the en>ir" has 3een #on#lded it
is well settled law that ere adission of the
#harges is not proved the #harges parse and it
is re>ired to 3e proved with the spport of
eviden#e and there were no eviden#e against the
petitioner s#h a #on#lsion drawn 3" the
appellate athorit" while disissing the appeal
of the petitioner is wholl" illegal and
ar3itrar".
). 4hat dring the %epartental En>ir" petitioner
tie and again re>ested for a defense
representation to present his #ase 3t he was
never provided an" defense representation and
when he soght perission fro the 7an; to
appoint a defense representative for hiself
s#h re>est was denied 3" the 3an;. 4herefore
at last petitioner hiself presented his #ase
dring the departental pro#eedings. :t is
s3itted that a delin>ent eplo"ee dring the
departental pro#eedings posses a legal right
to get its defense representative and s#h has
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
14/31
3een held 3" the 0on53le Spree )ort in the
#atena of the #ases therefore respondent 3an;
3" not providing defense representation to the
petitioner had done great injsti#e to the
petitioner and therefore on this sole grond
entire en>ir" vitiates.
%. 4hat it is well settled law and it also #oes
nder in natral law that a delin>ent person
who has to prove hiself inno#ent deserves to
get all the re>ired do#ents fro the
departent #on#erned it is s3itted that
petitioner tie and again re>ested the
respondent 3an; to provide hi the ne#essar"
do#ents and also provided a list of ne#essar"
do#ents whi#h were tost ne#essar" to prove
the #ase of the petitioner 3t all the re>est
ade 3" the petitioner went in vain as no
do#ents were provided and in fa#t when
petitioner soght the do#ents 3" filing an
appli#ation nder R4: 2, then also the
#oplete do#ents were not provided 3" the
respondent 3an;. :t is s3itted that s#h
#ond#t of the respondent 3an; ade it
ipossi3le to prove its #ase and to prove
hiself inno#ent and as there was a3(initio
#onspira#" against the petitioner s#h
do#ents were not provided deli3eratel" even
pon written re>est ade tie and again
therefore s#h #ond#t of the respondent 3an;
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
15/31
vitiates the en>ir" and the order of the
disissal is ar3itrar" illegal and 3ad in law.
E. 4hat the entire en>ir" pro#eedings deserves to
3e >ashed as the sae were essen#e of 3est
de#isional en>ir" pro#eedings #ond#ted with
the sole intention to ipli#ate the petitioner
and the en>ir" pro#eedings were #ond#ted with
the sole prpose to affir pro#eedings alread"
#ond#ted 3" the #on#erned #onspirers. 4he
#harges were fraed in a anner as if loss has
3een #ased and s#h loss has 3een #ased onl"
3" the #ond#t of the petitioner 3t no loss at
all too; pla#e and the alleged e3e99led one"
was deposited 3a#; in the 3an; in "sterios
#ir#stan#es. :t is s3itted that the jo3
profile of the petitioner liits his a3it onl"
pto the s#ope of provident fnd and therefore
he was not at all athori9e to isse withdrawal
vo#hers and as the alligations were ade
against the petitioner that he sed the fa;e
:%s of the other eplo"ee s#h is ipossi3le as
no prdent eplo"ee wold provide his ni>e :%
and password to the other #olleages as 3eing
so ade in danger the jo3 of an" eplo"ee in
the 3an;. :t is oreover s3itted that the
whole transa#tions alleged to have 3een ade
onl" 3" the petitioner 3t 3" ere persal of
s#h allegations it is ver" #lear that s#h
#annot 3e done 3" a single person as petitioner
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
16/31
was a jnior offi#er and never had the
athorit" to open s#h insta #ard a##onts 3"
hiself and to transfer the fnds fro the
other 3an; a##onts to s#h fa;e insta #ard
a##onts withot getting noti#e to the other
eplo"ees of the 3an; in the aforesaid
transa#tions five eplo"ees of the 3an; were
involved and petitioner was a ere s#ape goat
and all the sspended five eplo"ees e'plain
their respe#tive role in the aforesaid
transa#tion of the e3e99leent vide their
letter written to the Asstt. eneral +anager of
the 3an; in whi#h the" have #learl" stated that
the" had fll ;nowledge of reittan#e of one"
withdrawal of one" and deposition of the one"
3a#; into the 3an; and s#h was done with their
de athori9ation and sense. 4herefore 3" 3are
persal of the written do#ents of the other
eplo"ees it is #r"stal #lear that it was a
whole and whole #onspira#" ade 3" the five
sspended eplo"ees of the 3an; and the
petitioner 3eing the jnior ost was ade s#ape
goat when the whole is(#ond#t was dete#ted
and 3" a;ing nde inflen#e s#h other
inflen#ed people involved in s#h #onspira#"
for#ed petitioner to write a #onfession letter
and the langage of the #onfession letter was
s#h that it a" ipli#ate petitioner onl" and
all others were e'onerated. On this sole grond
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
17/31
the whole en>ir" pro#eedings vitiates and the
order of disissal of servi#e to the petitioner
is 3ad in law therefore lia3le to 3e set aside.
F. 4hat no independent witness were e'ained and
all the 3an; eplo"ees who were alread"
#onspiring against the petitioner were e'ained
3" the investigating athorit" and then to the
#on#erned witness and the #ross e'aination
#ond#ted 3" the petitioner apl" proves that
the whole pro#eedings was not done 3" the
petitioner and there were other people who have
fll ;nowledge of the e3e99leent and for the
reasons 3est ;nown to the appeased s#h
e3e99leent and allowed Rs. ! la#s to 3e
transferred to s#h nnaed a##ont. 4herefore
this #learl" state that the report of the
investigating offi#er was not 3ased on an"
eviden#e.
. 4hat the investigating athorit" as well as the
appellate athorit" de#ided the #ase of the
petitioner solel" on the 3asis of adission of
#harges ade 3" the petitioner disissed the
appeal of the petitioner. :n the #ase of Roop
Singh ?egi VBs Pnja3 ?ational 7an; 2*asi jdi#ial fn#tion. 4he #harges
leveled against the delin>ent eplo"ee st 3e
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
18/31
fond to have 3een proved. 4he prported
eviden#e #olle#ted dring investigation 3" the
investigating athorit" against all the a##sed
3" itself #old not 3e treated to 3e eviden#e
in the dis#iplinar" pro#eedings the onl" 3asi#
eviden#e were pon relian#e has 3een pla#ed 3"
the En>ir" Offi#er was the prported
#onfession ade 3" the petitioner and a##ording
to the petitioner he was for#ed to write s#h
#onfession. 4he petitioner 3eing an eplo"ee of
the 3an; and the said #onfession having several
#onse>en#es shold have 3een proved and
sffi#ient eviden#e shold have 3een 3roght on
re#ord to show that he had indlged in the
e3e99leent of one". Adittedl" there was no
dire#t eviden#e 3t the #onfession letter
throgh s#h #onfession 3ased onl" on the
prported #onfession of the petitioner is not
tena3le in the e"es of law.
0. 4hat the order of dis#iplinar" athorit" as
also the appellate athorit" is not spported
3" an" reason and onl" 3ased on the prported
#onfession. 4he aterial 3roght on the re#ord
pointed ot that s#h e3e99leent #old not
have 3een ade 3" a single person therefore the
gilt are re>ired to 3e proved. A de#ision #an
3e arrived at on s#h eviden#e ere #onfession
does not e'plain the reason 3ehind the whole
e3e99leent. 4he interreges drawn 3" the
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
19/31
En>ir" Offi#er apparentl" were not spported
3" an" eviden#e therefore in a3sen#e of no
legal proof against the petitioner the order of
the appellate athorit" deserves to 3e set
aside.
:. 4hat there has 3een a #oplete non appli#ation
of ind. 4he pnishent iposed is harsh and
severe and dis#riinatel" as sae #harges were
leveled against the five other eplo"ees of the
7an; and the" were also sspended with the sae
order as of the petitioner 3t as petitioner
was ade to #onfess all the other eplo"ees
were e'onerated and ths with o3li>e prpose
and #onstant the petitioner onl" was ade s#ape
goat and no allegations other five eplo"ees
with respe#t to having #ased loss to the 3an;
were ade.
/. 4hat there were two different e3e99leent one was
ade in the "ear 21 and reain n(dete#ted for
alost 1* onths and the other was ade on [email protected]
3" withdrawing Rs. ! la#s and was dete#ted after
si' onths. :t is s3itted that an" prdent person
with sond ind after e3e99leent of s#h a hge
aont wold not #ontine servi#e and wold have
left the pla#e as soon as possi3le oreover there
was a apparent lapse on the part of the respondent
3an; as the" were not a3le to dete#t and
e3e99leent of si' Rs. la#s for 1@ onths
altogether and one ore fa#t whi#h #reates
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
20/31
sffi#ient do3ts is that the one" was again
deposited in the "sterios #ir#stan#es to the
3an; after seven da"s of its withdrawal no person
wold steel Rs. ! la#s withot an" prpose as the
petitioner was having a proising #arrier and was in
no wa" in need of s#h one". 4he allegation that
petitioner ;ept s#h hge aont of Rs. ! la#s at
his hoe withot an" prpose after steeling it fro
the 3an; sonds falla#ios. Frtherore after
deposition of Rs. ! la#s on the s3se>ent dates of
the investigation was ade and the five delin>ent
eplo"ee #ontri3ted and deposited Rs. - la#s to the
3an; whi#h in itself is a nsal a#t as no #harges
were proved against an" eplo"ee 3" that tie and
the" were onl" sspended 3" deposition of s#h one"
to the 3an; s#h delin>ent eplo"ee aditted their
is#ond#t and petitioner 3eing the jnior ost and
the new person had to parti#ipate withot his will
in the inflen#e of its sperior offi#ers.
4herefore aforesaid fa#tal atri' a;es it #r"stal
#lear that it was a #onspira#" and petitioner was no
gilt" and he was for#ed to sign s#h adission 3"
his sperior athorities.
. 4hat other grond wold 3e rged at the tie of
argents.
1,. 4hat the petitioner has not filed an" s#h siilar
writ petition 3efore this 0on53le )ort or 3efore the
Spree )ort of :ndia.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
21/31
PRAER
:t is therefore pra"ed that this 0on53le )ort a"
ver" gra#iosl" 3e pleased to a##ept and allow this
writ petition and8
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
22/31
tie.
:t has 3een t"ped 3" " own t"pist who is not a
staff e3er of the 0igh )ort.
Pie papers are not readil" availa3le.
)onsel for the petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013
Parag ar Agarwal
Petitioner
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
23/31
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION
: Parag ar Agarwal son of aged a3ot "ears
/aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(
1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and a
well #onversant with the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the
#ase.
2. 4hat anne'ed writ petition has 3een drafted 3" or
#onsel nder " instr#tions whi#h has 3een read over
and e'plained to e and : have nderstood the sae well.
!. 4hat #ontents of para 1 to 11 are tre and #orre#t to
" personal ;nowledge and gronds A to of the writ
petition are #orre#t to " ;nowledge 3eing 3ased on
offi#ial re#ord of the #ase.
VERIFICATION
: the a3ove naed deponent do here3" verif" that the
#ontents of paras 1 to ! of " a3ove affidavit are tre
and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor an"
part of it is false.
So help e od.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
24/31
:dentified 3"8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013
Parag ar Agarwal
Petitioner
VERSUS
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
25/31
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUENTS
: Parag ar Agarwal son of aged a3ot "ears
/aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(
1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and a
well #onversant with the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the
#ase.
2. 4hat Anne'res 1 to , are the tre and #orre#t
Photostat #opies of their originals.
VER:F:)A4:O?
: the a3ove naed deponent do here3" verif" that the
#ontents of paras 1 and 2 of " a3ove affidavit are tre
and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor an"
part of it is false.
So help e od.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
26/31
:dentified 3"8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION NO.______/2013
Parag ar Agarwal
Petitioner
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
27/31
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents
S.B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE
22- OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4o
0on53le the )hief /sti#e
And his other #opanion /dges of the
0igh )ort of /di#atre for Rajasthan
At /aipr 7en#h /aipr.
A IT PLEASE OUR LORDSHIPS7
4he h3le petitioner naed a3ove ost respe#tfll"
3egs to s3it as nder8(
1.4hat the petitioners have filed the a3ove titled Writ
Petition 3efore this 0onG3le )ort toda" along with
this Sta" Appli#ation and fro the fa#ts and aterial
on re#ord a strong pria fa#ie #ase is ade ot in
favor of the petitioners and it has ever" hope of
s##ess in it.
2.4hat the averents ade and the gronds raised in
the writ petition a" ;indl" 3e treated to 3e the part
and par#el of the present writ petition in order to
avoid the repetition.
!. 4hat in the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the #ase
dring the penden#" of this writ petition the
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
28/31
respondents are restrained fro giving pon the
eorand dated [email protected].
$. 4hat the 3alan#e of #onvenien#e pria(fa#ie #aseand irrepara3le injr" fa#tors also lie in favor of
h3le petitioners.
:t is therefore pra"ed that this sta" appli#ation
a" ;indl" 3e e'pedited and dring the penden#" of
petition the respondent are restrained fro giving
pon the eorand dated [email protected] 3e sta"ed and the
petitioner a" allowed to #ontine at his present
pla#e of posting.
An" other order or dire#tion whi#h the 0on53le )ort
a" dee jst and proper in the fa#ts and
#ir#stan#es of the #ase a" also ;indl" 3e passed
in favor of the petitioner.
03le petitioner
/aipr
%ated 8
4hrogh )onsel8
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
29/31
)onsel for the petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION NO.______/2013
Parag ar Agarwal
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
30/31
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF STA APPLICATION
: Parag ar Agarwal son of aged a3ot "ears
resident of /aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(
1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and
a well #onversant with the fa#ts and
#ir#stan#es of the #ase.2. 4hat the anne'ed Sta" Appli#ation has 3een
drafted and prepared 3" " #onsel nder "
instr#tions whi#h has 3een read over and
e'plained to e and : have nderstood the sae.
!. 4hat the #ontents of para 1 to , of the Sta"
Appli#ation are tre and #orre#t to " personal
;nowledge and as per legal advi#e given 3" orlearned #onsel.
VERIFICATION
: the a3ove naed deponent do here3" verif" that the
#ontents of para 1 to ! of " a3ove affidavit are tre
and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor is
an" part of it false.
-
8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013
31/31
So help e od.
/aipr
%ated8