1989 Supreme(Raj) 598
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Bhargava, P.C.Jain, JJ.
Vasudeo K. Hardasani - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & anr. - Respondent
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2053 of 1986.
Decided On : 15-03-1989
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.S. Singhvi, Mr. Shyam Arya, Advocates.
For the State :Mr. K. N. Shrimal, Advocate.
The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority must comply with the requirements of the relevant rules and pass reasoned orders dealing with the contentions raised before them.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 16(7), 16(8), 16(9), 30(2) - ENQUIRY REPORT - FINDINGS - RECORDING - DUTY OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - CONSIDERATION OF RECORD - FAILURE - VIOLATION OF RULES - CONSEQUENCES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a government employee, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct. An enquiry was conducted, and a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. The petitioner challenged the orders in a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground that an appeal was available. The petitioner then filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. He then filed the present writ petition challenging both the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the record of the enquiry and to record its own findings on each charge, in violation of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958. The court also found that the appellate authority had failed to follow the mandate of Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 1958, and had not passed a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised before it in appeal.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority had complied with the requirements of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, and that the appellate authority had failed to follow the mandate of Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 1958. The court held that both the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were laconic and cryptic, and could not be upheld.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, and directed that the petitioner be deemed to be in continuous service and entitled to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner entered the Government service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Rajasthan Canal Project. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Directorate of N.C.C. w.e.f. 19.5.1967. He was transferred from Jaipur to Ajmer vide order dated 4.9.1982. He filed a civil suit in the court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City (West) Jaipur. Along with the suit, he also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was granted to him.
2. A memorandum dated 21.12.1982 was issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), proposing an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958'). A charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 9.8.1984. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 22.9.1984. After completion of the enquiry, a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension was inflicted vide order dated 1.10.1985. Against the order dated 1.10.1985, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1786/1985 Vasudeo K. Hardasani v. State of Rajasthan and others in which following order was passed:-
"16.10.85 In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-17 dated 1.10.85 whereby the penally of compulsory retirement has been imposed on him in departmental proceedings instituted under Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. An appeal lies against the aforesaid order under the said rules. In view of the fact that remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the writ petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.
Sd/- S.C. Agrawal, J."
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 2.12.85 (vide Annexure-7) but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.9.1986 (Annexure-8). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging both the orders dated 1.10.85 and 27.9.86.
4. The writ petition was admitted and notices were issued. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. We have gone through the statement of allegations on the basis of which charges were framed. They relate to an incident which happened on 12.4.1982, where the petitioner is alleged to have used abusive and derogatory language to Mr. K.S. Shekhawat. LDC and L.R. Malik. Office Assistant and also inflicted a fist blow on the mouth of L.R. Malik, and tried to pick up the steel chair 2-3 times in order to hurt Mr. Malik. He also made a telephone call from the office to call some one to help him. In all four charges were framed against the petitioner.
6. We have gone though the report of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure R-2). The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, has stated that from the above, not much credence can be given except that there was a definite fight between Shri V.K. Hardasani and Shri Lakhiram Malik. The Enquiry Officer has not very categorically and pacifically given any firm finding as to whether the allegations No. 1, 2 and 3 have been proved though it can be inferred that according to the Enquiry Officer, these charges have been proved. As regards Charge No. 4. the Enquiry Officer has categorically stated that it is not sufficiently proved. The Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 1.10.1985 (Annexure-6) has only reproduced the four charges levelled again to the petitioner and mentioned about holding of enquiry but has not discussed any evidence and has merely stated 'on perusal of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer most of the charges have been found established', and thereafter, has mentioned that Charges No. 1, 2 and 3 have been found proved and charge No. 4 partly proved against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner deserved to be strictly penalised. The Disciplinary Authority has not even referred to the defence or the reply submitted by the petitioner against the charge-sheet. The order dated 27.9.86 passed by the Appellate Authority is laconic and cannot be call
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
