Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sharda Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 24 September, 2011
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sangeet Lodha
1
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011
SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011.
SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
..
Date of Judgment :: 24th September 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr. Bharat Shrimali, for the appellant.
Mr. I.S.Pareek, AGC, for the respondents.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
This intra-court appeal by the petitioner-appellant is directed against the order dated 17.02.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.416/2009) and declined to interfere in the order dated 04.01.1996 whereby the late husband of the petitioner-appellant was ordered to be removed from service as a result of the disciplinary enquiry, essentially on the charges of absenteeism.
Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the husband of the appellant, late Shri Narayan Lal, who was working on the post of Constable, was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 containing 6 charges, all relating to his willful and frequent absence from duty. It appears from the material placed on record that in relation to the said disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent though got the defence nominee appointed but did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. After recording 2 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. the relevant evidence, the Inquiry Officer found all the charges proved; and the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the delinquent had been a habitual absentee with no scope of improvement. Accordingly, the husband of the appellant was ordered to be removed from service by order dated 31.03.1993. However, the delinquent preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 18.10.1993, set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter for consideration afresh.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand, the Inquiry Officer took up the matter afresh whereupon the delinquent appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 22.09.1995 and, while admitting the charges framed against him, prayed for leniency. The Inquiry Officer, accordingly, submitted his report on 23.09.1995 pointing out the submissions made by the delinquent as also with the finding that the charges were proved from the record and the delinquent was a habitual absentee.
After receipt of the inquiry report aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy thereof to the delinquent by the communication dated 13.10.1995 calling upon him to submit reply but the delinquent neither submitted any reply nor attended on duty. The Disciplinary Authority sent yet another notice on 22.11.1995 calling upon the delinquent to submit the reply but the delinquent chose not to appear at all. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority, by 3 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. its impugned order dated 04.01.1996, imposed the punishment of removal after finding it to be a case of regular absenteeism and there being no reason for any leniency.
The employee, husband of the appellant, is said to have expired on 14.12.2005. Admittedly, he never challenged the aforesaid order dated 04.01.1996 in his lifetime. However, as late as on 13.06.2007, the appellant filed a so-called review petition before His Excellency the Governor, seeking review of the order dated 04.01.1996. The review petition came to be rejected by the order dated 28.07.2007 with the observations that the same had been filed beyond the prescribed period of three years from the date of passing of the order impugned. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal.
The learned Single Judge of this Court considered the scope of interference by the Court in its writ jurisdiction in the matters relating to the disciplinary proceedings and observed that the power to interfere in such matters stood circumscribed by well-known factors; and that a well reasoned order could not be set aside only on sympathy or sentiments. The learned Single Judge further observed with reference to the factual matrix of the case that the petitioner's husband was a habitual absentee as on several occasions he remained absent without leave. Thus, the learned Single Judge found no reason to consider any interference in the punishment imposed and dismissed the 4 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal.
After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that in the matters relating to the disciplinary proceedings and the quantum of punishment therein, the scope of interference by the Court in the writ jurisdiction stands circumscribed by the relevant factors and once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the present case, we are unable to find any element of illegality or even irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings. On the contrary, it appears that the matter had been of indisputable delinquency of willful absence from duty. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the order as passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted with.
Apart from the above, what we find from the record is that the impugned order of punishment was passed against the husband of the appellant as back as on 04.01.1996; and the husband of the appellant expired on 14.12.2005 i.e.. more than 9 years later. Admittedly, the husband of the appellant, in his lifetime, never put a challenge to the said order dated 04.01.1996. In the given circumstances, the 5 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. appellant could not have been acceded the liberty to seek reopening of the matter after the demise of the employee against whom the order of removal had attained finality.
The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that the proceedings were earlier taken ex parte and then, the concerned Authorities neither followed the requisite procedure nor considered the material available on record about the ailment of the employee before imposing the harsh punishment of removal. We are afraid, these submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. So far the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, as noticed above, the earlier order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.03.1993 was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 18.10.1993 and the impugned order dated 04.01.1996 was passed after due and repeated notices. In fact, the delinquency of habitual absenteeism was found duly established from the record and the delinquent himself admitted the charges, apparently having no plausible defence. In any case, it cannot be said that the Department denied the delinquent a fair opportunity of hearing or omitted to comply with the requirements of the prescribed procedure. So far the question of ailment and thereby justification for absence is concerned, the facts in that regard were required to be proved in the disciplinary proceedings with cogent evidence. Mere production of a few medical certificates was neither sufficient nor an acceptable answer to 6 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.582/2011 SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. the delinquency of repeated absence without seeking leave. Apparent it is that the delinquent never took any step for proving the relevant facts. On the contrary, after remand, he could do no more than to admit the charges. Thus, there is neither any factual foundation nor any legal basis wherefor the concluded questions of fact could be re-opened in this appeal. The findings as recorded by the Inquiry Officer and by the Disciplinary Authority on facts do not call for any interference.
In any case, as observed above, it has been too late in the day when the petitioner-appellant came forward seeking to challenge the order dated 04.01.1996, passed in relation to her husband, by way of the review application in the year 2007 and then, by way of the writ petition in the year 2008.
In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are unable to find any fault in order impugned whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.
Accordingly, and as a result of the aforesaid, this intra- court appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. Rp/-
43.