Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
C.L. Verma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writs No. 1832 of 1997
Decided On : 01-05-2018
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 5(35) - RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 23(2) AND 125 - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - JUDICIAL OFFICER - MISCONDUCT - DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF CHARGESHEET - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS CONCLUSION - QUASHING OF CHARGESHEET AND PENALTY ORDER - CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Tehsildar, was served with a memorandum of charges alleging misconduct in opening mutation proceedings and violating provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. An enquiry was conducted, and the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension. The petitioner challenged the chargesheet, enquiry report, and penalty order, arguing that the issuance of the chargesheet was delayed, the acts were done in a judicial capacity, and there was no allegation of malafide intention.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the chargesheet was issued after a delay of nine years, which violated the petitioner's right to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. The Court further held that the petitioner had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and there was no allegation of malafide intention or ill motive. The Court also found that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the relevant provisions of law and had arrived at arbitrary and capricious conclusions. The Court quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report, and penalty order and directed the grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the issuance of the chargesheet after a delay of nine years violated the petitioner's right to defend himself in the departmental enquiry? 2. Whether the petitioner's acts, done in a quasi-judicial capacity, could be the subject of departmental enquiry in the absence of any allegation of malafide intention or ill motive? 3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority had considered the relevant provisions of law and arrived at arbitrary and capricious conclusions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the issuance of the chargesheet after a delay of nine years violated the petitioner's right to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. The Court relied on the principles laid down in the case of Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 247, wherein the Supreme Court held that a departmental enquiry must be conducted within a reasonable time and that an unexplained delay in issuing the chargesheet may deprive the delinquent of the opportunity to defend himself effectively. 2. The Court held that the petitioner's acts, done in a quasi-judicial capacity, could not be the subject of departmental enquiry in the absence of any allegation of malafide intention or ill motive. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 566 and Jagmal Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2015) 4 WLC (Raj.) 551, wherein it was held that if a person discharges quasi-judicial functions and has acted in a bonafide manner, the authorities cannot punish the said person by way of departmental enquiry. 3. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the relevant provisions of law and had arrived at arbitrary and capricious conclusions. The Court found that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the provisions of Section 5(35) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956, Section 23(2) and 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and had not given any reasons for its findings.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report, and penalty order and directed the grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after taking the same by issuing writ, order or direction:
(i) quash the charge sheet dated 29.7.94, enquiry report forwarded vide letter dated 27.3.96, letter dated 25.1.1997 and the punishment order dated 14.3.97 with all consequential benefits and the petitioner be treated to be in continuous service;
(ii) if during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner is superseded in RAS Senior Scale, the respondents be directed to further grant him promotion to RAS Senior Scale with all consequential benefits of pay and allowance;
(iii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner;
(iv) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined Rajasthan Tehsildar Services in the year 1978 and appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 11.01.1978 and thereafter he was posted on the post of Tehsildar. The petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Administrative Services cadre on the basis of seniority-cum-merit vide order dt.31.10.1991.
3. The petitioner was working in the year 1985 as Assistant Settlement Officer, Rajgarh, District Alwar and was also having the power of Land Record Officer and as such the petitioner was holding judicial Officer’s post, as per Section 5(35) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
4. The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges along with allegations under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 dt.29.07.1994 wherein total seven charges were leveled against the petitioner. The charges Nos.1 to 6 were in relation to opening of mutation proceedings in respect of different khasra numbers in village Chhilodii and the charge No.7 was in respect of violating the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as the petitioner was alleged to have allowed entries to be made in excess to the land than measurement by accepting the fragmented portion of the land. The extract of chargesheet is reproduced hereunder:-
^^vkjksi i= fo:) Jh fNxu yky oekZ] Hkw-iw-,-,l-vks-gkWy vkj-,-,l- vkjksi l[a;k & 1 ;g gS fd mDr fNaxu yky oekZ us o"kZ 1985 esa Hkw&izcU/k vf/kdkjh] vyoj ds v/khuLFk ,-,l-vks- ds in ij dk;Zjr gksrs gq, mDr vof/k esa xzke fNykSMh rglhy jktx< ds ifj'kh/ku la[;k 6 dks jtkcUnh ds vk/kkj muds Lohd`r djus ,oa dUgS;k iq= ikapk dk fgLlk vfu;fer :i ls ,d rjQk esa 'kkfey djus o LFkkukUrj.k dj vius inh; gSfl;r dk nq:i;ksx o fu;eksa dh vosguk djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gS tSlk fd layXu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi l[a;k & 2 ;g fd mDr Jh oekZ] ,-,l-vks- us mDr in ij mDr vof/k esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq, xzke fNyksMh rglhy jktx< ds [kljk ifj'kks/ku i= la- 7 ij jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 48 ds fo:) fofue; Lohdkj djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gS tSlk fd layxu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi l[a;k & 3 ;g gS fd mDr Jh oekZ] ,-,l-vks- us mDr in ij mDr vof/k esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq, xzke fNyksMh rg- jktx<+ ds [kkljk ifjxkS/ku la- 8 dk'rdkjh dh jatkcanh o dCtk dk'r ds vk/kj ij [kkrsnkjh ifjorZu ds vkns'k fu;efo:) djus o viuh inh; gSfl;r dk nq:i;ksx djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gSA tSlk fd layxu vkjksi forj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi l[a;k & 4 ;g gS fd mDr Jh oekZ] ,-,l-vks- us mDr in ij mDr vof/k esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq;s mDr Jh oekZ ,-,l-vks- us mDr in ij mDr vof/k esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq, xzke fNyksMh rg- jktx< ds [kljk ifj'kks/ku i= la- 9 dCtk dk'r jtkcanh o HkkbZ cVokjk vuqlkj jsdkMZVsM [kkrsnkj ds LFkku ij vU; d`"kdksa ds uke ntZ djus ds vkns'k vfu;fer :i ls fcuk l{ke U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj djus o viuh inh; gSfl;r dk nq:i;ksx djus ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gSA tSlk fd layxu vkjksi fooj.k i= la[;k 7 esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi l[a;k & 5 mDr Jh oekZ ,-,l-vks- us mDr in ij mDr vof/k esa dk;Zjr gksrs g
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
