Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raghuveer Singh S/O Shri Ummed Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Director ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:21665]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20358/2018
Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 53
Years, Resident Of Flat No. 207, D-235, Akshat Apartment,
Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Director General Of Police,
Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner Of Police (South), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Secretary To The Government, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Akshit Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Shubhendu Pilania,
Ms. Yuvika Pilania &
Ms. Malti, AGC
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, GC with
Mr. Shivam Chauhan, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
07/05/2024
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the penalty order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South), Jaipur, (for short 'the
Disciplinary Authority') whereby the petitioner has been
imposed with the penalty of 'Censure', the order dated
27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, (for
short 'the Appellate Authority') whereby the appeal filed by the
appellant-petitioner against the order of penalty of 'Censure'
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (2 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
was dismissed and so also the order dated 26.10.2015 passed
by the Joint Secretary (Appeal) Government of Rajasthan,
Department of Home, Jaipur, (for short 'the Reviewing
Authority') whereby the review petition assailing the penalty
order and order of Appellate Authority, was also dismissed.
2. The petitioner has also agitated an issue that
promotion of the petitioner on account of penalty of 'Censure',
cannot be withheld and withholding of promotion on such a
ground is illegal and arbitrary.
3. Facts as borne out from the pleadings are that the
petitioner while posted as Station House Officer, Police Station
Chaksu, a criminal case i.e. F.I.R. No. 300/2012 was registered
at Police Station Chaksu for offences under Sections 143, 341,
323 & 452 of IPC and the investigation of the same was
assigned to one Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable No. 582.
During the investigation process, the concerned Head Constable
who was assigned the investigation was trapped by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau outside the premises of the Police Station
while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.
4. The petitioner was served with memorandum of
charges dated 01.09.2012 with one of the charge that the
investigation of the criminal case No. 300/2012 was handed
over to Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable who was not
competent to make investigation for non-bailable offences and
other charge was that there was supervisory negligence of the
petitioner in regard to investigation of the criminal case No.
300/2012 and because of his supervisory negligence the Police
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (3 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
Personnel who was making investigation, demanded and
accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.
5. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the
memorandum of charges. As regards the charge No. 1, the
petitioner in the explanation stated that at the time when the
Criminal Case No. 300/2012 was registered at Police Station,
Chaksu, he was out of Police Station because of some official
work and the Duty Officer, Mr. Net Ram, Sub-Inspector who was
holding the charge at the relevant point of time, assigned the
investigation of the Criminal Case No. 300/2012 to one Mr.
Ramchandra, Head Constable and therefore petitioner cannot be
held guilty for assigning the investigation to an incompetent
person. It was also stated that as per the orders and
instructions of the State Government, the petitioner was not
having the authority to transfer the investigation from one
Officer to other and has also made reference of the Circular and
the orders issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan.
6. As regards the charge No. 2 is concerned, the
petitioner has denied the negligence. In regard to supervision of
the investigation of Criminal Case No. 300/2012, it was stated
by the petitioner that he instructed the concerned Investigation
Officer time to time and also warned that if the investigation
remains pending, he would be accountable for that. It was also
stated that petitioner has nothing to do with the demands and
acceptance of the bribe made by Shri Ramchandra, Head
Constable, who was having the investigation.
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (4 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
7. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner
of Police, (South), Jaipur passed the order dated 30.05.2013
and imposed the penalty of 'Censure'. Against the order of
penalty dated 30.05.2013, the appellant-petitioner preferred an
appeal under Rule 23 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification
Control and Appeal) Rules,1958 (for short the 'Rules of 1958')
before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 27.12.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant-petitioner.
8. The petitioner also preferred a review petition which
was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015, passed by the
Reviewing Authority.
9. As regards the challenge to the order of penalty and
dismissal of appeal, Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr.
Akshit Gupta submit that the order of penalty is neither a
reasoned order nor a speaking order. He also submits that the
respondent No. 1- Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority were under an obligation to pass a reasoned order on
the charges and the explanation submitted by the delinquent
person. He submits that the order of imposing penalty passed
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of Appellate
Authority did not disclose the reasons for holding the petitioner
guilty or the charges levelled against him without assigning any
reasons and therefore, the orders impugned are illegal, arbitrary
and unjustified.
10. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner further
submits that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion to
the post of Rajasthan Police Services (Junior Scale) against the
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (5 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
vacancies of year 2018-19, but the respondents have deprived
him from promotion only on account of penalty of 'Censure'
imposed upon him vide order dated 30.05.2013. He also
submits that the penalty of 'Censure' cannot be made an
obstacle for withholding the promotion of the petitioner.
11. In support of his submissions Senior Counsel has
referred the judgment dated 06.08.2013 delivered by the
Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ashok Singhvi (S.B.
special Appeal (Writ) No. 232/2013) and also the order
dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the
Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
7119/2022 (Jhhabar Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.). Challenge has also been made by the petitioner to the
Circular dated 04.06.2008, issued by the Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, whereby it has been
provided that on account of penalty of 'Censure', an employee
will be deprived with one chance of promotion. He has also
submitted that the aforesaid Circular issued by the Department
of Personnel cannot overrides the intention and implication of
the statutory rules.
12. Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG along with Mr.
Pradeep Kalwania, GC appearing for the respondents submit
that the order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority is
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and is
based on sufficient material. They also submit that no illegality
has been committed by the respondents in passing the order of
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (6 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
penalty as the charges were found to be proved against the
petitioner on the basis of the material available on the record.
Counsels appearing for the respondents also submit that
the Circular dated 04.06.2008 is in exercise of powers conferred
upon the respondents and that has been issued to give an
effective implementation of the statutory rules. They also
submit that the provisions of Circular dated 04.06.2008 cannot
be said to be contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules
and it has been issued only to make effective implementation.
13. Government Counsel appearing for the respondents
also submits that in writ jurisdiction while making scrutiny of the penalty order, the evidence and material which was available before the Disciplinary Authority cannot be re-appreciated.
14. Considered the submissions made by counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the orders and Circular which are under challenge in the present petition.
15. At the first instance this Court is considering the legality and validity of the order of penalty dated 30.05.2013, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority and also the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Reviewing Authority.
16. On consideration of the facts on record it is found that the petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 01.09.2012 with two charges. As per the statement of charges, the first charge against the petitioner is that when he was posted at Police Station Chaksu, the investigation of criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 300/2012 for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 & 452 I.P.C. was assigned to one Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (7 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] No. 582, who was not competent to make investigation in regard to the non-bailable offences. The second charge was that he was negligent for supervision in the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 300/2012 and because of his negligence the Officer investigating the case demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for which he was trapped.
17. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to both the charges. For the charge No. 1, he submitted that the F.I.R. No. 300/2012 was registered at Police Station Chaksu and at the relevant time he was not at Police Station because in connection with some official work on the information from police control room, he had gone to Kumharoki DhaniSakar Khaoda, Police Station Chaksu, along with ASI Mr. Puranmal, Constable, Sumer Singh and Subey Singh. It was the Duty Officer who was holding the charge at the relevant point of time who assigned the investigation to Mr. Ramchandra Head Constable. In the explanation, the petitioner also stated that as per the Circular dated 03.03.2012 issued by the Department of Home and the order dated 06.08.2012 issued by the Director General of Police, he was not having the authority to change the investigation from one Officer to other and it was only the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur having the authority to change the investigation within Jaipur District.
As regards the charge No. 2 the petitioner has specifically denied the allegation of negligence in supervision of the investigation and submitted that from time to time he issued instructions to the concerned Investigation Officer and also warned that if investigation remains pending for a long, he may (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (8 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] seek sanction after submitting the explanation for delay. The petitioner also stated that for taking and accepting the bribe by any Officer of the Police Station, he cannot held liable for such a conduct of that person merely because he is the S.H.O. of the Police Station.
18. The Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2013 and imposing the penalty of 'Censure' upon the petitioner, without giving reasons without assigning reasons for not accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner in regard to the charges levelled against him, has merely stated that the explanation is not satisfactory. The operative part of the order dated 30.05.2013 is quoted as under:-
" eSausa vkjksi i= o mlls lacaf/kr i=kfn rFkk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ds }kjk izLrqr Li'Vhdj.k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o euu fd;k rFkk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks fnukad 10-01-2013 dks O;fDrxr :i ls lk{kkRdkj esa lquk x;k] rks vkjksfir vf/kdkjh us ogh ckrsa nksgjkbZ tks vius fyf[kr Li'Vhdj.k esa vafdr dh gSA eSa bl urhts ij igqapk fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dk tokc larks'ktud ugha gSA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dh izdj.k esa iw.kZ ykijokgh ,oa v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ij lqijfotu dh deh jgh gSA vr% yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks izekf.kr ekurs gq;s fuEu vkns"k nsrk gwaA "
19. Against the penalty order dated 30.05.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur vide order dated 27.12.2013. The Appellate Authority has also failed to discuss the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed the order impugned without disclosing the reasons for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and has also (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (9 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] simply stated that the explanation and the arguments submitted by the petitioner during personal hearing are not satisfactory. The operative part of the order dated 27.12.2013 is quoted as under:-
" vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy izfrosnu] O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds rF;] foHkkxh; tkap i=koyh ,oa bl tkap ls lEcfU/kr leLr izys[kksa dk iw.kZ xgurk ls v/;;u dj euu fd;k x;k rks ik;k fd vihykFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dh vihy esa izLrqr rdZ ,oa O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds nkSjku crk;s x;s rF; lUrks'kizn ugha gSA ;fn vihykFkhZ }kjk izdj.k esa lgh lqijohtu fd;k tkrk rks izdj.k ds vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks izdj.k ds vkjksih ls 5000@& #- dh jkf"k crkSj fj"or izkIr djus dh fgEer ugha gksrhA vihykFkhZ ij vkjksi izekf.kr gSA "
20. The reviewing authority also without assigning any reason to the explanation submitted by the petitioner dismissed the review petition vide order dated 26.10.2015, which is quoted as under:-
" iz"kklfud foHkkx us viuh fVIi.kh esa vafdr fd;k gS fd vuq"kklfud vf/kdkjh us fu;ekuqlkj izfØ;k viuk dj ,oa O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj nsdj n.Mkns"k ikfjr fd;k gSA vihyh; vf/kdkjh us Hkh fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k dk ikyu dj ,oa O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj nsdj vihykns"k ikfjr fd;k gSA ;fn ;kph } kjk izdj.k esa lgh i;Zos{k.k fd;k tkrk rks izdj.k ds vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks izdj.k ds vkjksih ls 5000@& #0 dh jkf"k crkSj fj"or izkIr djus dh fgEer ugha gksrhA ;kph ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi izekf.kr gSA iz"kklfud foHkkx }kjk vuq"kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s n.M dks vkjksi dh rqyuk esa lekuqikfrd ,oa mfpr crkrs gq;s mlesa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dh xqatkbZ"k ugha gksus dk mYys[k dj iqujkoyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gSA miyC/k vfHkys[k ,oa fVIi.kh ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd izdj.k esas vkjksfir }kjk iznf"kZr i;Zos{k.kh; ykijokgh ds fy, vuq"kklfud vf/kdkjh us (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (10 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] vkjksfir dks izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds n`f'Vxr lekuqikfrd n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k gSA vihyh; vf/kdkjh us vihy ij lE;d~ foospu mijkar vihy dks mfpr :i ls [kkfjt dh gSA ;kph us ;kfpdk esa ,sls dksbZ uohu o lkjoku rF; izLrqr ugha fd;s gSa ftlls n.Mkns"k o vihykns"k esa gLr{ksi okaNuh; gksA vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa o iz"kklfud foHkkx ds vfHker ds n`f'Vxr iqujkoyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA "
21. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 01.09.2012 for initiating disciplinary proceedings in exercise of powers given under Rule 17 of the Rules 1958. The procedure for proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings has been given in detail in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, which are reproduced as under:-
"17. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to
(iii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after -
(a)The Government Servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make;
(aa) holding an enquiry, in the manner laid down in Rule 16, in every case, in which it is proposed to with-hold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, or with cumulative effect for any period or so as to adversely affect the amount of pension payable to him or in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(b) such representation, if any submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a), and the record of enquiry, if any, held under clause (aa), is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority;
(c) an opportunity of personal hearing is given by the Disciplinary Authority to the Government Servant to explain his case, if so desired by him;
(d) The Commission is consulted in cases where such consultation is necessary.
(2) The record of proceedings in such cases shall include:-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry;
(v) the findings of each allegation;
(vi) the advice of the Commission, if any; and (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (11 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
(vii) the orders on the cases together with the reasons therefore."
22. On bare perusal of the language of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, it reveals that no order imposing any of the penalties satisfied in Clause (i) to (iii) Rule 14 can be passed against the concerned Government servant without informing him in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make.
23. The basic feature of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 is that the concerned Disciplinary Authority before passing order imposing penalty of 'Censure' has to disclose the petitioner the intention of the authorities of initiating disciplinary action against him i.e. by issuing a charge-sheet giving out the details of the allegations and has to be given an opportunity to make any representation, meaning-thereby the delinquent person is to be given an opportunity of submitting explanation for the allegations levelled against him.
The intention of Rule Framing Authorities while making Rule 17, from the language of the Rule, very clearly is of the view that before taking any action against a Government servant he should be informed and the intention of disciplinary action against him by disclosing the allegations against him and allowing an opportunity to submit his explanation to the allegations and only thereafter the order imposing penalty can be passed if after considering the allegations levelled against the Government servant and the explanation submitted by that Government servant, the Disciplinary Authority comes to the (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (12 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] conclusion that allegations against the Government servant are found to be proved based on the material available on record to support the allegations. The satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority is to be disclosed in the order imposing the penalty by a speaking order i.e. by giving reasons for not accepting the explanation submitted by the Government servant discussing the material allegations which could prove or disprove the allegations.
Disciplinary Authority merely stating that the explanation submitted by the Government servant is not satisfactory, is not sufficient of the Rule 14. In view of the language of Rule 14, the Disciplinary Authority is under an obligation to make an observation giving out the reasons for not accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the present case the petitioner has submitted explanation with the specific averments which have not been even discussed by the Disciplinary Authority in the order imposing the penalty. The provision in rules for allowing opportunity to show cause and hearing also includes that the explanation and submission made during personal hearing should be considered mindfully by giving reasons.
24. On perusal of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority, it is found that the orders have been passed on the same pattern as has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority without disclosing and giving out the reasons in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPSRTC Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Civil Appeal No. (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (13 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] 1883/2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4465/2006 decided on March 25, 2009 has observed as under:-
"8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR
120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
10. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 (5) SCC 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justicedelivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice.
Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: "varying according to the Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (14 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] of disposing of judiciously the claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind."
26. This Court in the case of Sriram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 817/2002 decided on 11.10.2023, has issued directions in regard to the necessity of passing a reasoned and speaking order. The relevant para is quoted as under:-
"16. A speaking order ensures that the principles of natural justice are followed. To give reasons for the decision is a requirement of the principles of natural justice. The order would show which particular circumstance received due consideration while arriving at the decision. As held in Kishan Lal v. UOI [1998] 97 Taxman 556 (SC), a speaking order reduces arbitrariness. A reasoned order speaks for itself. It embodies in itself the principles of natural justice. In the case of Asstt. Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Quota v. Shukla & Bros. [2010] (4) JT 35, the Supreme Court observed that it shall be obligatory on the part of the judicial or quasi-judicial authority to pass a reasoned order while exercising statutory jurisdiction. In the absence of a reasoned order, it would become a tool for harassment.
17. A principle which has developed in course of time is that the order which is passed affecting the rights of an individual must be a speaking order. This is necessary with a view to exclude the possibility of arbitrariness in the action. A bald order requiring no reason to support it may be passed in an arbitrary and irresponsible manner. It is tile reason for passing an order, which checks the arbitrariness. It is a step in furtherance of achieving the end where society is governed by Rule of law.
27. The basic principle of the service jurisprudence is that whenever an adverse order is passed against a Government servant then it must be in such a manner that it could show that there is a proper application of mind. An order passed without (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (15 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] application of mind, is illegal and arbitrary and same is not sustainable in eyes of law. The Disciplinary Authority must consider the facts on record i.e. the allegations against the Government servant and the written explanation, oral submissions made by the Government servant before passing the order of penalty and such an order imposing penalty must contain good and sufficient reasons. Orders imposing penalty must be speaking orders containing the reasons for coming to such conclusion of holding the delinquent employee guilty of any misconduct and the reasons for holding the charges proved against that delinquent employee. Failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority not disclosing the reasons for reasons of not accepting the explanation of the petitioner cannot be said to be a speaking order and the order which fails to disclose the reasons is an illegal order and cannot be sustained. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jasram Jat Vs. Inspector General of Police & Vs. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2012 decided on 11.10.2023 has observed as under:-
"16.It is true that while exercising the powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should no function as a court of appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Such orders can be interfered only when there is "no evidence" in the Departmental Enquiry.
18.Perusal of the impugned order indicate that both Disciplinary and Appellate Authority have acted in a cursory manner and have passed the impugned orders in a casual manner without assigning good and sufficient reasons. Both these orders are perverse and are not in accordance with law. It is true that discipline is the hallmark of disciplinary forces like police etc. and each and every member of the disciplinary forces are supposed and expected to behave in a disciplined manner and they are not supposed to violate the discipline by consuming liquor in public space or should arrive in public place in a drunken position. Drinking in open (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (16 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] public place or street is not permissible and the same amounts to an offence under Section 34 of the Police Act.
19.As per Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct)Rules, 1971 (for short, 'Rules of 1971') a government servant shall strictly abide by the law relating to intoxicating drink or drugs which are in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being and he shall not appear in public place under the influence of any drink or drug."
28. In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in 2010 INSC 582 on the point of necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the legal position in paragraph- 47, which is reproduced as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (17 of 31) [CW-20358/2018]
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber- stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37])
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxford : 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
22. The order impugned does not assign any cogent reason for not accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the same is no consideration at all."
37. Right to Property is recognized as a human right. It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution of India as well under Article 300-A, not to be deprived of it save by authority of law. Orders of demolition/removal of the one's property, in the manner, like the one, as in the present case, cannot be sustained as it would deprive the person of his constitutional right to property not in accordance with law.
38. Passing an order on the printed proforma, does not comply with the requirements of statutory provisions nor with the principles of natural justice. The order is not to be passed mechanically, just signing the printed format. There should be (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (18 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] consideration of the reply to the show cause notice and assigning the reasons.
39. The administrative authority and the tribunals are also obliged to give reasons absence whereof would render the order liable to be judicial chastise. There should be no pretence of reason or rubber-stamp reasons."
29. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ No. 35976/2012 K. Ashok Kumar Vs. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation decided on 22.11.2012 has observed as under:-
"2. To say the least this is most unsatisfactory way of deciding an issue. Every order must contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived thereat. It is the reasons which provide the links to the conclusions. The relevance of those reasons must lend support to the conclusion. The expressions "found not satisfactory" are reflective of the conclusion but, not the reason. As to why the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory, forms part of their process of reasoning.
3. In a judicial review exercise, the court is concerned not by the decision per se so long as it is not perverse or illegal, but decision making process. The decision making process must be fair and reasonable. It is elementary that every decision must be based upon the reasons. Thus, reasons become the foundations for the conclusions. At best they will indicate clearly the lines on which the mind of the competent authority has been applied and in the worst they will indicate the exclusion from the zone of consideration of irrelevant factors. Therefore, the impugned order is ex facie illegal for not supplying the live links to the conclusion, which in turn indicates non-application of mind to the objections stated. When I say that there must be reasons assigned, I am not expecting the administrative authority to deal with the objections in the same manner as a very well trained court would have done. But, at least, the objections must be seriously taken into account and consideration and an appropriate answer should be furnished thereto. Then alone, the usual attack of non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority can be neutralized. For sheer lack of reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 16.10.2012, it is set aside after hearing Sri (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (19 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] Radha Krishna Reddy, leaned Standing Counsel for GHMC who in spite of a valiant effort put in by him could not satisfy me that the impugned order contained any reasons. An increasing trend is noticed by the courts that, whenever orders are passed, directing the respondents to act in accordance with law, in particular, the respondent authorities are just mechanically passing orders without serious application of their minds. This is a dangerous trend. It must be arrested and reversed most promptly. In the instant case, a Division Bench of this court in WP No. 16545 of 2008, has directed the respondents to finalise the action. The hope of this court that the respondents would conclude the entire exercise in accordance with law has thus been belied, as is now demonstrated by the impugned order. The impugned order is, in a way, a perverted implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No. 16545 of 2008. If I may say so, this is a help which the respondents have extended to the cause of the petitioners by passing such mechanical and thoughtless orders, and in doing so the respondents are far from complying with an earlier judgment of this court, are only acting in breach thereof. Since Sri Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel suggested that I may not take a serious view of the conduct of the officer concerned, I am not taking a serious view of this attitude of the officer. I am sure the officer concerned will not provide any such further opportunity for this court henceforth."
30. In view of the consideration made above and the observations as well as principles laid down in various pronouncements as referred above, this Court can safely held that the order dated 30.05.2013, imposing the penalty of 'Censure' on the petitioner is not sustainable as same is violative of the intention of Rule 17 and also suffers from illegality and arbitrariness. As has been held in various judgments referred to above, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the reviewing authority are also (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (20 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] on the same lines as of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty. The Appellate Authority as well as the reviewing authority have also not passed the speaking order giving out the reasons for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and has also erred in upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which does not disclose any reasons that how and in what manner the allegations levelled against the petitioner are found to be proved and that too without there being any discussion to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Reviewing Authority are also held to be illegal and arbitrary.
31. On consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner it can also be said that charges alleged against petitioner are even not made out.
32. The petitioner has also assailed the Circular dated 04.06.2008, issued by the Department of Personnel as instructions in regard to regular promotions whereby the impact of one penalty of 'Censure' will deprive the concerned Government servant from one chance of promotion and similarly the Government servant will be deprived of promotion on account of minor penalty of withholding Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect and without cumulative effect also. Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. appearing for the petitioner submits that the Circular dated 04.06.2008 is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the law. Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has been deprived from chance of promotion against the (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (21 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] vacancies of the year 2018-19 for the post of Rajasthan Police Service (Junior Scale) on account of penalty of 'Censure' imposed upon him vide order dated 30.05.2013. He further submits that since the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit and therefore the action of the respondents in withholding the promotion of the petitioner as against the vacancies of year 2018-19 is not sustainable.
33. Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG appearing for the respondent- State submits that the Circular dated 04.06.2008 has been issued so as to make an effective implementation of the Rules and to give a proper effect and impact of the penalties imposed upon a Government servant. He further submits that the impugned Circular does not suffer any illegality.
34. As per the provisions of the Circular dated 04.06.2008, it is envisaged that the employee who has suffered the penalty of 'Censure' or stoppage of Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect, are debarred from promotions for equivalent number of years as that of the number of the increments.
35. Bare reading of the provisions of the Service Rules of the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 clearly speaks that penalty of withholding increments can be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in case certain charges are found to be proved or otherwise penalty of withholding promotion can be imposed. Meaning-thereby, either the penalty of withholding increments or withholding promotion can be imposed upon a Government servant by the Disciplinary Authority being found that the charges are proved by the Disciplinary Authority. While imposing (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (22 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] the penalty of 'Withholding Annual Grade Increment' or 'Censure', it was very much clear that law was not intending to withhold the promotion of the concerned Government servant. In the present case, the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of 'Censure'.
36. The respondents have issued the Circular dated 04.06.2008 whereby effect of imposing penalty of 'Censure' and withholding increment would also deprive the petitioner from chance of promotion, though the Rules of 1958 do not speak so and therefore, this Court finds that the Circular dated 04.06.2008, is contrary to the intention of the Rules of 1958. It seems that respondents have issued the impugned Circular so as to supplement the Rules and filling up the gaps. The respondents cannot create a new state of things which were never intended in the relevant Service Rules governing the provisions regarding promotion.
37. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 provides for minor and major penalties to be imposed upon a Government servant on being found charges proved which are levelled against him in the charge-sheet. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 is quoted as under:-
14. Nature of Penalties.-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :- (i) censure ; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order ;
(iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post; or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (23 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules ; (v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension ; (vi) removal from service which shall ordinarily not be a disqualification for further employment ; (vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment. Explanation :- (1) The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the rule:- (i) withholding of increments of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the Service or post or the terms of his appointment; (ii) stoppage of Government servant at the efficiency bar in the time scale on the ground of hid unfitness to cross the bar ; (iii) non-promotion whether in a substantive or officiating capacity of Government servant, after consideration of his case, to a Service, Grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible ;
(iv) reversion to a lower service, grade or post of a Government servant officiating in a higher service grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher Service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct ;
(v) reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of a Government servant appointed on probation to another service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation ; (vi) compulsory retirement of Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement ; (vii) termination of the services - (a) of a Government servant appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (24 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation ; or (b) of a temporary Government servant appointed otherwise then under contract on the expiration of the period of appointment; (c) of a Government servant under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement; (d) of a Government servant in the services of any of the integrating units of Rajasthan, on non-selection or non-absorption for appointment in any of the services of the integrated State of Rajasthan in accordance with the integration rules. Explanation:- (2) The discharge of a person appointed on an ad-hoc or provisional basis to any of the posts in the integrated setup of Rajasthan Services otherwise than for reasons of non-selection or non-absorption to any such services or posts in a accordance with the integrated rules, shall amount to removal or dismissal as the case may be. Note-The disqualification for further employment on account of dismissal under Rule 14 (vii) can only be waived by the Government if the merits of an individual case so justify."
38. On bare reading of Rule 14, it is clear that while framing the rules the rule framers were of the opinion that the Government servant can be imposed with the penalty of either (I) 'Censure', or (II) 'Withholding Annual Grade Increment' or 'Withholding Promotion'. The language of the said rule clearly speaks that rule framers were of the view that while in case of imposing penalty of 'withholding annual grade increment', the same itself will not adversely affect the avenue of promotion, if the Government servant is otherwise found suitable. The rule framers while incorporating the penalty of 'withholding annual grade increment' or 'withholding promotion' with a specific intention used the word "or" in between 'withholding annual grade increment' and 'withholding promotion'. By using word (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (25 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] "or" the intention of the rule framers is very clear that in case of imposing penalty of 'withholding annual grade increment' their intention is not to withhold the promotion avenue of the Government servant merely on account of penalty. Withholding annual grade increment and withholding promotion are different kinds of penalties which may be imposed upon Government servant. Meaning thereby, if penalty of 'withholding annual grade increment' is imposed on a Government servant, that cannot be termed to be a penalty of 'withholding promotion' also.
On consideration of the provisions of the Rules this Court is of the view that rule framers were not having intention to withhold the promotion of a Government servant merely on account of imposing penalty of 'Censure' or 'Withholding the annual grade increment'. If that would have been the intention of the rule framers they would have mentioned in the Rule 14 as 'withholding annual grade increment' and 'withholding promotion' but they have mentioned the penalty as 'withholding annual grade increment' "or" 'withholding promotion'.
39. In view of the discussions made above, this Court safely can held that withholding promotion for a Government servant on account of imposition of penalty of 'Censure' or 'withholding increment' is illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and therefore the Circular issued by the respondent- State in this regard disasters to be set aside."
40. In the case of Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 452], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory Rules by administrative instructions and any Circular containing the provisions for making the system so rigid that it curtail or restrict the powers conferred on the Selection Committee and Appointing Authority by the Rules. The Court further opined that such circulars/administrative instructions is (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (26 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] per se opposed to the selection procedure envisaged under the Rules:-
"The Apex Court made following observations in Para 39 of the verdict:
39. Then the question is whether Government is competent to issue the said Circular and whether the Circular in any manner affects the discretion and powers of the Committee functioning under the statutory rules. The position is clear, as laid down by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) "It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed."
The Court further proceeded to observe on evaluation of the Circular, in Para 47, as under:
47. One gets a fairly good picture of the nature of the instructions contained in the circular issued by the Government. No doubt a properly evaluated marking system may be helpful for assessing the merit of persons who are already in service. But the instructions given in the circular are so rigid that they are opposed to the selection to be made strictly on merit as provided under Rules 28-B and 32.
While appreciating the object of the Circular, the Apex Court proceeded to observe that such a circular offend the Rules, in Para 53 of the verdict:
53. The object of the circular may be to bring about uniformity in the award of marks. But the directions contained therein do offend the rules.
This is not a case of the Government filling up the gaps or of giving executive instructions on matters not provided for by or not inconsistent with the rules. The Learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, have by and large, upheld the validity of the marking system as well as the other instructions contained in the circular of 1966 on the ground that the marking system as pointed out by the State has been in vogue from 1960, on the basis of a previous circular, dated August 31, 1960, issued by the State Government. Reliance placed upon this circular of 1960 by the High Court, in our opinion, is not justified. We have gone through the circular of 1960 which is No.F.1(6)Apptts.(D)/60, dated August 31, 1960. That circular was issued by the State to clarify the misapprehension that appears to have been caused (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (27 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] in the application, for promotion on the principle of merit-cum seniority or seniority-cum merit. For the purpose of having uniformity, the State Government had laid down certain principles in the said circular to be borne in mind by the Promotion Committees. No doubt there is a marking system indicated therein. But there are two features which distinguish the circular of 1960 from that of the 1966 circular. In Paragraph 3 of the former circular, it is specifically laid down that the principles mentioned therein are only in the nature of executive instructions to be kept in view by the Committees when marking promotions. It is made clear that those Committees "should however, exercise their own discretion while applying the above principles in view of the fact that occasionally the Confidential Rolls may not have been written with full sense of responsibility. Moreover, some of the rules permit interview before selection and in such cases the Selection Committee will have to assess suitability of the officer as a result of the interview also". Under the circular of 1966, we have already indicated, no such discretion is left to the Selection or Promotion Committees to adopt any method other than that indicated in the circular. In fact, it is emphasised that the Statutory Service Rules and the instructions contained in the circular are to be treated as a complete code by the Committees. Another point to be noted is that in 1960 the question of promotion on the basis of merit alone had no place. That principle was adopted only, as pointed out by us earlier, in 1965 which led to the amendment of the rules. Therefore, the principles mentioned in the circular of 1960 cannot be relied on when considering the validity of the present circular, when promotion by merit alone has been recognized by the Rules from 1965. We have already indicated that the instructions in the 1966 circular contravene the Rules. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the circular, dated August 27, 1966, is bad and accordingly it is struck down. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the validity or otherwise of the circular of August 31, 1960. We have only referred to that circular to show that the High Court has committed an error in placing reliance on the same."
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in case (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (28 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] of Guman Singh (supra) as held in case of Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Chak [(2013) 6 SCC 287), has held as under:-
"43. We also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Dhruv Mehta that Circular No.17 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009 and Circular dated 12.7.2010 are to ensure that the individual members of DPC do not recommend for promotion an individual officer despite having been punished in the proceding five years. Such curtailment of the powers of DPC would have to be located in the statutory service rules. The 1998 Rules do not contain any such provision. The submission needs merely to be stated, to be rejected. We also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mehta that without the aforesaid guidelines, an officer, even though, he has been punished for gross misconduct would have to be permitted to be promoted as no minimum marks are prescribed for interview or performance appraisal. In our opinion, it is fallacious to presume that under the 1998 Rules, once an officer gets the minimum marks in the written examination, he would be entitled to be promoted on the basis of seniority alone. There is no warrant for such a presumption. The misconduct committed by an eligible employee/officer would be a matter for DPC to take into consideration at the time of performance appraisal. The past conduct of an employee can always be taken into consideration in adjudging the suitability of the officer for performing the duties of the higher post.
44. There is another very good reason for not accepting the submissions made by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. Different rules/regulations of the banks provide specific punishments such as "withholding of promotion, reduction in rank, lowering in ranks/pay scales". However, there is another range of penalty such as censure, reprimand, withholding of increments, etc. which are also prescribed under various staff regulations. To debar such an employee from being considered for promotion would tantamount to also inflicting on such employee, the punishment of withholding of promotion. In such circumstances, a punishment of censure/reprimand would, in fact, read as censure/reprimand plus five years' debarment from promotion. Thus the circulars issued by the Bank debarring such employees from being considered would be clearly contrary to the statutory rules.(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21665] (29 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] The circulars clearly do not fall within the ratio in Sant Ram case.
45. In our opinion, the observations made by this Court in Ram Ashish Dixit are a complete answer to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Dhruv Mehta. Therefore the High Court, in our opinion, has rightly quashed the aforesaid two circulars and directed that the respondent beb considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules."
42. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ashok Singhvi D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 232/2013, decided on 06.08.2013, after giving thoughtful consideration to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shanker Lal Parmar (AIR 2012 SC 1913, Guman Singh (supra), held Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank (supra) has observed as under:-
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, scanned the materials on record and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
A glance at the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge clearly and unequivocally reveals that the learned Single Judge has simply confined the relief to the respondent visa- vis his right of consideration for promotion and question of his suitability for promotion has been left open to be decided by the competent authority. Learned Single Judge has further observed that if the penalty suffered by the incumbent adversely effects minimum merit necessary for efficiency of administration, the DPC can adjudge him unsuitable for promotion. Learned writ Court has further concluded that debarring an incumbent from his right of consideration for promotion on the strength of Circular dated 26th of July 2006 is not sustainable and that being so issued directions to consider the candidature of the respondent ignoring the said Circular. On examining the impugned order in the light of Rule 24A of the Rules of 1963 and on the touchstone of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Guman Singh's case (supra), and the latest verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank's case (supra), we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. The legal precedents which are cited by the learned (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (30 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] Addl. Advocate General, are having no bearing whatsoever on the issue involved in the matter, and therefore, these judgments are of no help to the appellants. We, therefore, fully concur with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and find no merit in this appeal."
43. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in case of Jhhabar Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7119/2022, decided on 10.05.2023 after relying on various judgments has observed as under:-
"8. In the present matter, it is not disputed that the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit and therefore, the ratio as laid down vide the above judgments would definitely apply. In the present petition, earlier, specific directions were issued to the respondent-Department and in pursuance to the same, result of DPC has been placed on record and as per the said result, the petitioner has been recommended for promotion.
9. In view of the settled proposition of law, the present writ petition is partly allowed. As the petitioner has already been recommended for promotion in the DPC, the orders qua his promotion be issued in terms of law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the present order."
44. So considering the provisions of Rules and the law laid down in various judgments, as referred above, this Court can safely held that the Circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel to the extent of depriving the Government servants from consideration for promotion in case of criteria for promotion being Seniority-Cum-Merit on account of penalty of 'Censure' or withholding increments, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
45. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 30.05.2013, passed by the Deputy (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21665] (31 of 31) [CW-20358/2018] Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and also the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Joint Secretary Government of Rajasthan (Appeal) and so also the Circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel to the extent as observed in above paras, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits which accrue to him as if no such order of penalty was ever passed against him.
46. The exercise for promotion or review so as to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner, be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from today.
47. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK Dy. Registrar/ Divya Saini/495 (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)