Negligence in discharge of judicial functions can be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

1. - This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant, a Nayab Tehsildar, aggrieved by order dated 08.11.2012 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed in limine.

2. The facts in brief are that the Collector, Sirohi exercising powers under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958') initiated a disciplinary action against the appellant vide memorandum dated 27.06.2011. The appellant was charged for negligence in discharging his duties while dealing with the matters relating to encroachments. In the statement of allegations, it was indicated that the appellant failed to take effective steps and that he was not serious towards the matters pertaining to encroachments and, wherever action was taken, the same was done only with a view to prove the possession of the encroachers on the public land.

3. On receipt of the memorandum dated 27.06.2011, the appellant requested for inspection of certain documents, which was permitted. However, despite repeated directions to file reply, when no reply was filed, the disciplinary authority by order dated 14.12.2011 held the appellant guilty of misconduct and found him negligent in discharge of his duties. Accordingly, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who vide his judgment dated 09.07.2012 upheld the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Sirohi and dismissed the appeal.

5. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 14.12.2011 and 09.07.2012 approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11166/2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by order dated 08.11.2012 observing and holding thus:-

"True it is, the proceedings under Section 91 are of judicial nature and a judicial error is not a misconduct, but in the instant matter the allegation against the petitioner was not of giving any wrong finding in judicial proceedings, but of negligence while dealing with the cases under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. The disciplinary authority after considering the entire material available on record and also the explanation tendered by the petitioner arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner was quite negligent in discharging his duties. The disciplinary authority also arrived at the conclusion that no effort was made by the petitioner to remove the encroachment. The failing of the petitioner in discharging his duties is not a judicial error but a serious negligence that comes within the purview of misconduct. The disciplinary authority, thus, was right in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner.

The second argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the order impugned is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. This argument too is bereft of merit. The disciplinary authority while serving a notice as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 sought an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner before submitting explanation desired to have inspection of records. The disciplinary authority permitted the petitioner to inspect the record, particulars of which were adequately given by the petitioner. No inspection was permitted relating to the records for which particulars were not given. The petitioner without raising objection for that made an inspection and submitted his explanation to the allegation levelled. After considering the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an appropriate order. If the petitioner was having any objection, then he should have raised that before submitting his explanation but that was not done. As such, I do not find any wrong with the order imposing a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958.

The