Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 348
2007 (2) WLN 457 (Raj.)
Rajasthan High Court
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Ramlal
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 928/1995—Decided on 28.02.2007.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958—Rule 17—Promotion—Denial of—When not justified—Petitioner was Tehsildar and working as registering authority—On allegation of misconduct, departmental enquiry was conducted against him—Disciplinary authority held petitioner guilty for misconduct—Only allegation against petitioner was that he registered the document without adhering the provisions of Sec. 21 of Registration Act—Disciplinary authority failed to point out violation of any such law—Respondents denied promotion to petitioner to junior scale of R.A.S. only ground of two minor penalties imposed by disciplinary authority—Held, order of disciplinary authority quashed—Respondents directed to reconsider candidature of petitioner for purpose of promotion of junior scale of R.A.S. against vacancies of the year 1994-95. [Paras 12, 13, 14 & 15]
Held: In the instant matter the only allegation against the petitioner was that he registered the document without adhering the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908. In explanation the petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated that description of property and maps as required under Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908 were available on record, therefore, he was having no option but to register the document. The disciplinary authority in the order while imposing penalty upon the petitioner have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner merely on the count that the petitioner registered the document though there was some dispute about the title and information in this regard was given to him by the Municipal Board concerned. I am of the considered opinion that the approach of the disciplinary authority is erroneous as under the Act of 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder a registering authority could have refused for registration of document only if there was any violation of law. The disciplinary authority failed to point out violation of any such law and as the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner i.e. of stoppage of one annual grade increment is absolutely illegal. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and, therefore, their orders too are bad in eye of law.
[Para 13]
The respondents denied promotion to the petitioner to junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 only on the count of two minor penalties, reference of those are given in preceding paras. The order dt. 06.07.1990 has already been quashed by the Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Sec. 34 of the Rules of 1958 and the another order dt. 18.10.1989 has already been declared bad in eye of law by this Court as above, as such the respondents are required to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner to Junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 afresh.[Para 14]
Govind Mathur, J.—The promotion to the junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 was denied to the petitioner being suffered with minor punishment under the order dt. 18.10.1989 passed by the Collector, Pali and the order dt. 06.07.1990 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, hence this petition for writ is preferred claiming the reliefs as under:-
“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the charge-sheet dt. 09.02.1987 and the order dt. 18.10.1989, 03.12.1990 and 20.06.1993 be declared illegal and be quashed:
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the charge-sheet dt. 01.12.1988 and the orders dt. 06.07.1990 Annexure 10 communicated vide order dt. 19.07.1990 be declared illegal and be quashed:
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Junior Scale of R.A.S. Against the vacancies of 1994-95 by ignoring the penalties imposed by them in pursuance of the charge-sheet dt. 09.02.1987 and 01.12.1988 and if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion then he may be given such promotion with all consequential benefits.”
2. During pendency of this petition the order dt. 06.07.1990 has already been set aside by the Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) therefore, the prayer made under clause (ii) ) has become infructuous, thus this petition for writ is pressed only to the extent it relates to prayer Clauses (i) and (iii).
3. The case of the petitioner as laid in the petition is that under a memorandum dt. 09.02.1987 issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioner was charged for misconduct as follows:-
ßvkjksi uacj&1
vki Jh jkeyky foÓuksbZ] rglhynkj] lgkM+k] ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk mi iath;d dk dk;Z Hkh djrs gSaA Jh dUgS;kyky oYn eksguyky pkScs fu- xaxkiqj }kjk vkjkth uacj 112@6 jdck 4 ch?kk 14 fcLok fdLe eaxjh fcykuke vkcknh dk cspku foØ; i= }kjk Jh Ókadjyky oYn feJhyky] izdkÓkpUnz izgyknjk; oYn feJhyky ukSy[kk fu- xaxkiqj] panzizdkÓk oYn pkaney lq[kyspk fu- jk;iqj ,oa Jherh deyk nsoh iRuh vtqZuyky fla?koh fu- HkhyokM+k dks fnukad 09-10-1986 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k FkkA vki }kjk mi iath;d dh gSfl;r ls mDr nLrkost dk iath;u fnukad 09-10-1986 dks fd;kA mä foØ; i= ds iath;u ls iwoZ uxjikfydk xaxkiqj }kjk muds i= fnukad 01-10-1986 ls vkidks lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk fd mä vkjkth uxjikfydk xaxkiqj dh gSA blfy;s voSèk Ø; foØ; dks iathc¼ ugha djkosaA bl izdkj vkidks bl ckr dh tkudkjh gks pqdh Fkh fd mä Hkwfe Øsrk dh u gksdj uxjikfydk dh gS fQj Hkh vkius mä nLrkost dks iathc¼ dj fn;k x;kA vki mi iath;d ds vykok Hkw&èkkjd Hkh gSaA Hkw&èkkjd dh gSfl;r ls vkidks fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds iath;u ls iwoZ Hkkjrh; iath;u vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 21 dh ikyuk lEiq"Vr% djokuh pkfg;s Fkh ysfdu bl vkSj Hkh vkids }kjk iath;u ls iwoZ dksbZ è;ku ugha fn;k x;kA blls Li"V tkfgj gS fd vki }kjk izfrdwy i{k dks vuqfpr ykHk nsus gsrq mä nLrkost dk iath;u fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vkius fu;eksa dk mYya?ku dj vius vfèkdkj ,oa in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vius dÙkZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh cjrh gSA vkidk ;g d`R; nqjkpj.k gSA
vkjksi uacj&2
vki Jh jkeyky foÓuksbZ] rglhynkj (mi iath;d) lgkM+k ls mi[k.M vfèkdkjh] xaxkiqj }kjk muds i= fnukad 03-10-1986 ls vkjkth uacj 112@6 jdck 4 ch?kk 14 fcLok Hkwfe dk voSèk :i ls Ø; foØ; ds lacaèk esa tkap fjiksVZ pkghA rn~uqlkj vkidks mä vkjkth ds voSèk fcdko ds ckcr iw.kZ tkudkjh gks pqdh FkhA ,slh nÓkk esa vkidks bl lacaèk esa tkap izfrosnu fHktokrs gq, Li"V funsZÓku izkIr djuk pkfg;s FkkA ysfdu vkius ,slk ugha djds mä voSèk Ø; foØ; ds nLrkost dks iathc¼ djok fn;kA bl izdkj vkius tkucw>dj vius ls mPp vfèkdkfj;ksa ds vknsÓk ,oa funsZÓk dk ikyu ugha dj voKk dh gS tks vuqÓkklughurk gksdj dÙkZO; ds izfr ykijokgh cjrh gSAÞ
4. The petitioner explained his stand for the allegations levelled by reply dt. 23.02.1987 re
