Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Brijmohan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4149 of 2010
Decided On : 07-08-2019
CCA RULES - REVIEW OF ORDERS - LIMITATION - POWER OF GOVERNOR - SCOPE - [RULE 34] - The Governor's power to review orders under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules is subject to a limitation period of three years from the date of the order sought to be reviewed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Rajasthan Police, was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had consumed liquor while on duty and fled from the camp area. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of fixing the petitioner's pay on the minimum pay scale. The Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a review petition with the Governor, who set aside both orders and directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Governor's order was not legally sustainable as it was passed more than three years after the date of the orders sought to be reviewed. The Court also held that the Governor's power to review orders is circumscribed by the statutory limit prescribed under Rule 34.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor's power to review orders under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules is subject to a limitation period? 2. Whether the Governor's power to review orders is circumscribed by the statutory limit prescribed under Rule 34?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Governor's power to review orders under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules is subject to a limitation period of three years from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. The Court relied on the plain language of Rule 34(iii), which states that "no action under this rule shall be initiated more than three years after the date of order to be reviewed." 2. The Court held that the Governor's power to review orders is circumscribed by the statutory limit prescribed under Rule 34. The Court noted that Rule 34 confers various powers on the Governor, including the power to modify, set aside, or confirm orders, impose penalties, and remit cases for further action or inquiry. However, the Court held that these powers are subject to the limitation period prescribed in Rule 34(iii).
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Governor's order and the consequential orders. The Court also directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority, which imposed a penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
ORDER :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. Matter comes up on an application for early hearing.
2. The application for early hearing is disposed of in the light of the joint prayer by the counsel for the parties to hear the matter finally today itself.
3. In a joint submission, counsel for the parties submit that in a case having identical charges arising out of the same incident and belonging to the same decision and the same post so also at the same level, this Court has interfered with and under the same circumstances with same factual matrix, this Court has passed the order on 09.01.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4148/2010: Bahadur Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. The order reads as follows:
The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice dt. 04.02.2010 issued to him asking his explanation as why major penalty may not be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was working as Constable in RAC 8th Battalion, was served with charge sheet dt. 07.05.2005 relating to an incident dt. 20.03.2005 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was posted as a Guard and he consumed liquor, after Roll Call on 20.03.2005. It was alleged that the petitioner did not discharge his duty, left the camp area and reported back later after getting himself hurt. The Disciplinary Authority had served the charge sheet relating to same incident, bifurcating the change into three separate charges.
The charge sheet was served under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct regular departmental enquiry and enquiry report was prepared and submitted on 17.08.2005 and the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant 8th Battalion RAC (IR) passed penalty order dt. 23.09.2005 wherein the petitioner was visited with a penalty of fixing the petitioners' pay on the minimum pay scale on the post of Constable and further directed the petitioner to remain more careful in future and to improve his conduct.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the penalty order dt. 23.09.2005, preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police, RAC-I and submitted that the penalty order was not proper. The Appellate Authority after considering the entire record came to the conclusion that the punishment was excessive and the allegation against the petitioner was not found to be proved. The Appellate Authority set aside the penalty of fixing the petitioner on minimum pay scale and substituted the penalty with stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal in part.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the appellate order as well as penalty order, preferred review petition before the Governor under Rule 34 of CCA Rules, 1958.
The petitioner was communicated order dt. 20.07.2009 on his review petition and the Reviewing Authority found that the charges against the petitioner were of serious nature and amounted committing major misconduct and as such major punishment was required to be given. The Reviewing Authority set aside both orders of Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority and sent the matter to Disciplinary Authority to impose a major penalty under sub-Rule (v to vii) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 and further directed that notice may be given to the
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
