Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 September, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13368/2019
Mahendra Singh S/o Sajjan Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Chirana, P.s. Rohat District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Pali District Pali
(Disciplinary Authority)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara
Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 23/09/2019 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 14.06.2019 (Annex.5) as well as dismissal of appeal dated 13.08.2019 (Annex.7), wherein on account of conviction of the petitioner by the competent criminal court in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner has been dismissed from service in exercise of power under Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958') and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as the respondents did not undertake any inquiry against the (Downloaded on 24/09/2019 at 08:52:25 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-13368/2019] petitioner, passing of the order impugned dated 14.06.2019 (Annex.5) and dismissal of the appeal (Annex.7) are not justified.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Lakha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12858/2015, decided on 20.02.2018.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment by a Competent Criminal Court though in appeal filed by the petitioner, the sentence has been suspended.
Provisions of Rule 19(i), inter-alia, reads as under :-
"Rule 19. Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18,
(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) ...... ...... ...... ......
(iii) ...... ...... ...... ...... the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it may deems fit."
A perusal of the above provision would clearly reveal that notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 16, 17 & 18, which deal with procedure for imposing major penalty, minor penalty and Joint Enquiry respectively against the Government servants, where a penalty imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct, which has led to his conviction on criminal charge, the disciplinary authority can pass the order as it deems fit. The provisions are clear and based on which, the order impugned has (Downloaded on 24/09/2019 at 08:52:25 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-13368/2019] been passed by the respondents and appeal has been rejected, and therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
In so far as the judgment in the case of Lakha Ram (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958, which are wholly independent of the provisions of Rule 19(i) and as such, neither the said provisions of Rule 19(ii) can control the exercise of power under Rule 19(i) nor 19(i) can take colour from the provisions of 19(ii) so as to have any applicability of judgment in the case of Lakha Ram (supra) to the facts of the present case.
In view thereof, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 77-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 24/09/2019 at 08:52:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)