1982 Supreme(Raj) 493

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, M.C.Jain, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Amolak Chand Sanghi - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 37 of 1975 against judgment date 11.12.1974. of S.B. in S.B.C.W.P. No. 498/1970.
Decided On : 1-12-1982

A Disciplinary Authority before imposing any one of the penalties specified in r. 14 of the Rules should record reasons in support of it so that the Courts may be able to examine its correctness.

Headnote:

DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - Evidence - Previous statements of witnesses recorded by Police - Admissibility - Disciplinary Authority - Order imposing penalty - Reasons to be recorded - Speaking order - Rules 14, 16(6)(a), 16(9) and 16(11) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, was charged with abusing his official position by authorising, making and claiming unauthorised payments through fabrication of records with a view to cheating the Government. A departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had employed one Nanhey Khan as a driver for his private car and had prepared false vouchers showing that Nanhey Khan was employed as Chowkidar-cum-Beldar and Mistry and arranged payments of his salary from the Irrigation Department though he had never worked as Chowkidar-com-Beldar and Mistry during the relevant period. The Enquiry Officer also found that the petitioner had not undertaken a tour from Ghatti to Nahargarh on July 9, 1959 yet he had charged his T.A. The petitioner denied the charges as well as the allegations against him. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Government passed an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the previous statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police were admissible in evidence and that the Enquiry Officer was right in relying on those statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses in preference to the statements that were given at the enquiry. The Court also held that the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was not in accordance with law as it was a non-speaking order and did not record any reasons in support of it.

Issues: 1. Whether the previous statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police were admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the Enquiry Officer was right in relying on those statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses in preference to the statements that were given at the enquiry? 3. Whether the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was in accordance with law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the previous statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police were admissible in evidence as they were proved by the persons who gave the statements, namely. P. W. 2 Gopallal and P.W. 3 Naney Khan. These previous statements were tendered in evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had opportunity to cross-examine P. W. 2 Gopal Lal and P.W. 3 Nancy Khan. The statements Exs. P. 8, 9 and 10 which were recorded behind the petitioner were put to the witnesses and they were admitted by then. These statements having been put to P. W. 2 Gopallal and P. W. 3 Naney Khan, thus, form part of the oral evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 2. The Court held that the Enquiry Officer was right in relying on those statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses in preference to the statements that were given at the enquiry as the previous statements were admissible and there was no bar for holding that they did not constitute legal evidence in support of the charge. 3. The Court held that the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was not in accordance with law as it was a non-speaking order and did not record any reasons in support of it.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the special appeal and upheld the order of the learned single judge dated December 11, 1974. However, the Court made it clear that the Disciplinary Authority will not be precluded from passing any fresh orders in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner keeping in view the Rules and the observations made above on the basis of the material on record in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.