A distinction must be drawn between misconduct and error of judgment. Misconduct implies intentional wrong-doing, while error of judgment does not.

Headnote:
PUBLIC SERVICE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT - INQUIRY OFFICER'S REPORT - PUNISHMENT IMPOSED ON BASIS OF ASSUMPTION THAT CHARGES PROVED - NO FINDING OF MISCONDUCT - ERROR OF JUDGMENT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN MISCONDUCT AND ERROR OF JUDGMENT - REPRESENTATION BY GOVERNMENT SERVANT - CONSIDERATION BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - REASONS FOR REJECTION - COMMUNICATION OF ADVICE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO GOVERNMENT SERVANT - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - PREJUDICE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a government employee, was charged with misconduct for preparing a false injury report and making a false statement in court. An inquiry officer found that the petitioner had committed an error of judgment but did not find that he had acted with intentional wrong-doing. The state government, however, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, assuming that the inquiry officer had found him guilty of misconduct.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the state government's order was not supported by the inquiry officer's report and that the petitioner had not been found guilty of any misconduct. The court also held that the state government had failed to consider the petitioner's representation in reply to the show-cause notice, as required by the rules, and that the petitioner had not been provided with copies of the advice given by the Public Service Commission, as required by the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the state government's order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner was supported by the inquiry officer's report? 2. Whether the state government had considered the petitioner's representation in reply to the show-cause notice, as required by the rules? 3. Whether the petitioner had been provided with copies of the advice given by the Public Service Commission, as required by the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the state government's order was not supported by the inquiry officer's report because the inquiry officer had not found that the petitioner had acted with intentional wrong-doing. The court distinguished between misconduct and error of judgment, holding that misconduct implies intentional wrong-doing, while error of judgment does not. 2. The court held that the state government had failed to consider the petitioner's representation in reply to the show-cause notice, as required by the rules. The court held that the rules impose an obligation on the disciplinary authority to consider the representation made by the government servant in reply to the show-cause notice served on him, which means that it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to deal with the submissions contained in the representation of the government servant and to give adequate reasons for rejecting the said submissions. 3. The court held that the petitioner had not been provided with copies of the advice given by the Public Service Commission, as required by the rules. The court held that the rules cast an obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to communicate to the Government servant, a copy of the advice given by the Public Service Commission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the state government's order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dr. R K Sharma, has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 12th June, 1973 passed by the State Government, whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension has been imposed on the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows.

3. The petitioner was an employee of the State Government and in the year 1961-62 he was posted as Medical Jurist at Prince Vijai Singh Memorial Men's Hospital, Bikaner. When he was working as Medical Jurist at the said hospital, the petitioner conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of one Smt. Daya Devi (Dayawati) on 17th April, 1962, and prepared a report after conducting the said post-mortem examination. While acting as medical Jurist at the said hospital the petitioner on 13th September, 1961, had examined the injuries of one Hanumandas Chandak and had prepared the injury report on the basis of the aforesaid medical examination of Shri Chandak. By memorandum dated 29th February, 1968, the petitioner was informed that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification. Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ,"the Rules"). The said memorandum was accompanied by a statement of charges containing three charges and the statement of allegations in respect of the said charges. In Charge No. 1, it was alleged that in the report of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Daya Devi (Dayawati) the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the truth and did not state the cause of death as a result of which the accused persons were acquitted in the case. In Charge No. 2, it was alleged that the petitioner had prepared a false injury report in respect of the injuries of Shri Hanuman Das Chandak and that in the court he gave a false statement which was inconsistent with the injury report. In Charge No. 3 it was alleged that the petitioner is in the habit of making false reports and fake statements. After the receipt of the aforesaid memorandum dated 29th February, 1968, the petitioner submitted his reply on 12th March, 1968, wherein he submitted that the charges levelled against him were false and that no inquiry was called for. An inquiry was however conducted in 'he said charges by Shri Gajendra Singh, Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries Rajasthan, Jaipur who after conducting the inquiry submitted his report. In his report the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of Charges No. 1 and 3. So far as Charge No. 2 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer held that these was no intentional first in the inquiry report as regards injury No. 1 and that the petitioner had committed an error in treating Injury No. 1 as simple without referring the case to the Radiologist. With regard to injury No. 2 the Inquiry Officer held that although there was no inconsistency so far as the injury report and the statement of the petitioner in the Court is concerned; yet the mention of the injury as simple resulting in the fall of the tooth was a matter of confusion and contradiction in the mind of the petitioner and that there was no intentional falsity in the matter. After the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer. the State Government issued a show cause notice on 10th November, 1971 whereby the petitioner was informed that the Governor had tentatively decided that the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension be inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 31st December, 1971 to the aforesaid show cause notice and the matter was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In its advice dated 11th April, 1972, the Commission opined that the punishment of wo grade increments with cumulative effect may be imposed on the petitioner. The State Government however, did not a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Raj) 278

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHS.C.Agrawal, J.Dr. R.K Sharma - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1388 of 1973.Decided On : 01-07-1980

A distinction must be drawn between misconduct and error of judgment. Misconduct implies intentional wrong-doing, while error of judgment does not.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Dr. R.K Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1388 of 1973.
Decided On : 01-07-1980