Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dungar Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 21 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(3)WLC139, 1995(2)WLN685
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 20.3.80 Annx. 8 to the writ petition passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect and also for quashing the appellate order dated 21.3.83 Annx. 10 to the writ petition upholding the minor penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant appeal are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector in Udaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Udaipur, he was suspended by the Administrator on 6.7.78 and an enquiry Under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appel) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) was initiatead against him.
3. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet along with statement of allegations Annx. 3 to the writ petition and Enquiry Officer was appointed.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge - sheet before the Enquiry Officer, which is filed as Annx 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence before the Enquiry Officer vid Notice dated 4.10.79. Before imposing the aforesaid minor penalty, the petitioner was also given second show cause notice.
5. After service of notice the answering respondents filed a detailed reply denying emphatically the averments made in the writ petition and stated that the Administrator of the Bank received a complaint from the Collector Udapur. The Administrator took a decision to suspend the petitioner and to initiate the disciplinary proceedings after conducting the preliminary enquiry and site inspection in connection with the veracity of the certificate issused by the petitioner recommending the case of a farmer for disbursement of loan for installation of Diesel Pump-set.
6. After conclusion of enquiry a clarification regarding true facts existing on the spot was sought by the disciplinary authority. Considering the enquiry report along with clarification report together with materials available on record, he came to the conclusion that certificate recommending loan for an agriculturist for installation of Diesel Pump-set, was not justified and reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory.
7. I have herd Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully gone through the relevant record.
8. Learned Counsel appealing for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated Under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to record the reasons for making an order of remand or de novo enquiry. Lastly it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct, in as much as, the petitioner in has recommendation clearly opined that the depth of well was 13 feet and its water level was 7 feet deep and as such, the well was capable of being used for installing the Diesel Pump set for irrigation. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors. and three decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 WLN 715, Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1980 WLN (UC) 311 and G.S. Rajawat v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) WLC (Raj) 117.
9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the answering respondents refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the orders impugned in the present case are eminently just and proper and do not require any indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar and have critically gone through the material available on record.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has been awarded penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect, which falls within the purview of minor penalty enumerated Under Rule 14(0) of the Rules of 1958. Hence, in my considered opinion, the disciplinary authority was not required to follow the procedure of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. It would be profitable to quote Rule 14, which reads thus:
RULE 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 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 not be a disqualification for further employment.
(vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
12. A careful scrutiny of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 can be divided into two categories of penalties, namely; Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, which can be said to be minor penalties and for imposing such minor penalties, detailed procedure is provided Under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 which is to be followed. The Second category of penaties are enumerated in the aforesaid Rule from S.No (iv) to (vii), which are popularly called as major penalties and procedure prescribed for imposing such major penalties are contemplated under "Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.
13. In fact in the present case, the procedure prescribed Under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was not required to be followed But the procedure prescribed Under Rule 17 of the said Rules was required to be followed by the disciplinary authority which porovides detailed procedure for imposing miner penalties. At this stage, it would be proper to quote Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, which provides detailed procedure for imposing minor penalties:
17. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (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:
(b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority;
(c) 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 advice of the Commission, if any; and
(v) The orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.
14. The aforesaid Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 clearly provides five stages of disciplinary proceedings before impoing minor penalties, viz. (i) Censure, (ii) withholding of increments or promotion and (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 to a delinquent officer/employee. These five stages of the disciplinary proceedings for imposing the aforesaid minor penalties are as follows:
(a) Notice or Information in writing of the proposal to take action,
(b) Statement of allegations is to be supplied along with notice asking the delinquent to make any representation,
(c) Representation by the delinquent officer or employee,
(d) Consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and
(e) Consideration of representation and final orders with reasons therefor.
15. In the instant case, consultation with the Commission was admittedly not necessary. A close scrutiny of the material on record leads toward an irresistible conclusion that al the safe-guards provided under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 before imposing minor penalties, have been followed. Nothing has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the safe-guards provided Under Rule 17 of the said Rules for imposing minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect to the petitioner have been violated.
16. The second limb of argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings for imposing penalties Under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 are initiated by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority proposed to hold an enquiry Under Rule 16 of the said Rules, he cannot be permitted abruptly to switch over the procedure prescribed Under Rule 17 of the said Rules.
17. The aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable unless some prejudice is caused to the petitioner. No prejudice has been brought to my notice, therefore I am fully satisfied that before imposing penalty mentioned above, the petitioner has been given most effective reasonable opportunity of hearing and allegation contrary to it, is not acceptable to me. In the present case, the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing, by the Enquiry officer, by making a preliminary enquiry on spot before initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. After submission of enquiry report in abundant caution, the disciplinary authority directed the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Udaipur to make spot inspection of the well, cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the petitioner while imposing minor penalty on him. It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner was given second show cause notice by the disciplinary authority after receipt of enquiry report in pursuant to which the petitioner has given detailed explanation. The disciplinary authority after applying his mind to the material available on record, has imposed the aforesaid minor penalty, which is eminently just and proper.
18. The appellate authority by upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority has also not committed any error. He has given cogent and convincing reasons to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner after applying his mind, which is perfectly justified.
19. Next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. It was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record the reasons for making an order of remand or de novo enquiry is also not acceptable tome for the reasons stated above. As a matter of fact, for imposing minor penalty, Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the said Rule cannot be pressed into service. It is true that before imposing any of the minor penalties enumerated under Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14, the disciplinary authority is required to follow detailed safe-guards prescribed Under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, which has been faithfully complied with in the present case. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority in abundant caution wanted to have some clarification regarding the facts existing on the spot. The clarification was sought accordingly by the disciplinary authority vide its enter dated 26.7.79, copy whereof is enclosed along with reply to the writ petition as Annx. Rule 2. It is incorrect to say that the disciplinary authority directed to conduct further enquiry in the matter. In fact, a clarification" regarding true facts existing on the spot was sought by the disciplinary authority.
20. After considering the enquiry report along with clarification, other material available on record together with explanation submitted by the petitioner and also after applying his mind to the facts and, circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority has imposed the afore-mentioned minor penalty on the petitioner, which is eminently just and proper. The clarification which is annexed as Annx Rule 3 with the reply, is only a statement of fact, which was found in existence on the spot, cannot be termed further enquiry as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, no further enquiry was, conducted , therefore, Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 cannot be presed into service.
21. Last argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct, in as much as, the petitioner in his recommendation clearly opined that the depth of the well was 13 feet and its water level was 7 feet deep and the well was capable of being used for installing the Diesel Pump-set for irrigation, is not acceptable.
22. A close scrutiny of the order dated 20.3.80 Annx. 8 to the writ petition passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 21.3.83 Annx. 10 to the writ petition passed by the Appellate Authority throw a flood of light that both the authorities have carefully considered the material on record and after applying their mind came to the conclusion that the petitioner's reommendation for disbursement of loan in favour of an agriculturist for installation of Diesel Pump-set was not justified. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that he is not technically competent in this regard has rightly been found to be unsatisfactory.
23. Next contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that while dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has not given reasons in support of his conclusion is devoid of truth and merit. Although the order passed by the appellate authority was an order of confirmation, yet the appellate authority has given congent and convincing reasons in support of his conclusion for rejecting the appeal, which is Just and proper.
24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid arguments place reliance on the cases of Ram Chander (supra), Kripal Singh (supra) and Phool Chand (supra) but the facts of the aforesaid cases are not applicable to the case in hand. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid three decisions are related with major penalty of dismissal or removal from service for which, an oral detailed enquiry is provided Under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 whereas the present case is about minor penalty for which procedure is prescribed Under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The procedure prescribed for major penalties for dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank Under Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules, is very strigent procedure while imposing minor penalties, such strigent safe-guards are not contemplated Under Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules.
25. As regard the case of G.S. Rajawat (supra), it was a case of minor penalties but the facts of this case is a also not applicable in the present case. In paragraph 30 of the judgment, it was found by the learned Single Judge that the order of punishment passed in that case, was found to be per verse as it was based on no evidence on record. It was also found to be bad on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of the appellate authority as well as the order passed in the review, were found to be unreasoned orders, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case, the writ petition was allowed. But in the present case, the finding of misconduct of the petitioner is based on evidence and principles of natural Justice has been followed by the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 21.3.83 Annx. 10 to the writ petition cannot be said to be unreasoned order, therefore, the ratio of the said case is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. As a result of the afore mentioned discussion, the instant writ petition is dismissed with costs.