IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Dr. (Smt.) Usha Singh, W/o. Dr. A.K. Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011 Of 2011
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13 - Post of Lecturer in Sociology - Grade increment with cumulative effect may kindly be declared illegal - Petitioner was initially appointed - Department of Higher Education on post of Lecturer in Sociology and was later sent on deputation to the Women and Child Welfare Department as Child Development and Project Officer - Education Department and she was directed to join back Department of Higher Education but as petitioner was not relieved by the respondent-Women and Children Welfare Department - Held, Court should not interfere with administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of Court, in sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards - Court would not go into correctness of the choice made by administrator open to him and Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator - Writ petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.11.2008 whereby the penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The reliefs as prayed for in the present petition are as under :
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, order passed by the reviewing authority dated 26.10.2010 (Annex.-18) which has been supplied to the petitioner on 08.02.2011, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits;
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order passed by the disciplinary authority 03.11.2088 (Annex.-15) whereby, the penalty of withholding of two grade increment with cumulative effect may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits;
(iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the charge sheet dated 14.11.2003 (Annex.-6) may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and order dated 26.05.2008 (Annex.-13) passed by the disciplinary authority may also be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits;
(v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to make the payment of salary during the suspension period between 08.08.2003 (Annex.-4) till 17.01.2004 with all consequential period and to regularize the suspension period with all consequential benefit;
(vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; and
(vii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are as under:
The petitioner was initially appointed on 11.08.1998 with the Department of Higher Education on the post of Lecturer in Sociology and was later sent on deputation to the Women and Child Welfare Department as Child Development and Project Officer (CDPO) for a period of one year. Vide order dated 09.09.2002, her period of deputation was extended. The said extension order was not accepted by the Higher Education Department and she was directed to join back the Department of Higher Education but as the petitioner was not relieved by the respondent-Women and Children Welfare Department, she did not join back her parent Department with immediate effect.
3. While working with the respondent-Department, an order dated 08.08.2003 was issued by respondent no.1 whereby the petitioner was suspended from service in contemplation of a Departmental Inquiry under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’). She was directed to report at Headquarter at Jaipur during her suspension period. While under suspension, the petitioner was reverted back to her parent Department vide order dated 23.08.2003.
4. On 14.11.2003, a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent no.1-Secretary, DOPT in terms of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, whereby 8 charges were framed against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was then appointed and as per the Inquiry Report, the Charges No.1 to 5 were found to be proved and Charges No.6 to 8 were held to be not proved.
5. The Inquiry Report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority, who disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Charges No.6 & 7 and held the said charges also to be proved against the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 03.11.2008, a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner and the amount qua the suspension period except the subsistence allowance was also directed to be forfeited. A review petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.11.2008, which came to be rejected vide order dated 26.10.2010 by
S.N. Mukkherjee Vs. Union of India
Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Chairman and Managing Director
Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran
State of UP & Ors vs Nand Kishore Shukla & Anr
M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and another
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departme....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
The court ruled on the necessity of proportionality in disciplinary action, emphasizing that harsh penalties must be justified and aligned with the seriousness of the misconduct.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.