Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Ganesh Kumar Vijaywargiya S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Vijaywargiya – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3060 of 2021
Decided on : 13-12-2023
Disciplinary Proceedings - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Rule 86 - Unauthorized Absence - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES] - [Rule 16, Rule 86]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector Land Records, was served with a charge-sheet for unauthorized absence. Despite explanations and requests for leave, an enquiry found the petitioner guilty, leading to his removal from service. The petitioner appealed the decision, claiming genuine reasons for absence and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge of unauthorized absence was not proven, as the show-cause notices were not served and the petitioner reported for duty promptly after receiving a notice under Rule 86. The court also noted that the inquiry and subsequent decisions failed to consider the petitioner's justifications and service records, leading to a wrongful removal from service.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, Procedural irregularities, Failure to consider justifications and service records
Ratio Decidendi: The charge of unauthorized absence must be proven, and procedural fairness must be maintained in disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry must consider justifications and evidence presented by both parties before reaching a decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the removal from service and directing the petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who was working as an Inspector Land Records was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.09.2018 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter as “CCA Rules, 1958”) by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Authority). The charge sheet has been reproduced hereinbelow:
| ^^dk;kZy; ftyk dyDVj ¼Hkw-v-½ mn;iqj |
| ||
|
| Øekad% ,Q&9@1¼ch½23@tkap@Hkw-v-@18@7961 | fnukad% 17-09-2018 | |
|
| vkjksi i= | ||
| Jh x.ks'k dqekj fot;oxÊ; rRdkyhu Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd vksx.kk rglhy >kMksy gky Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd dw.k rglhy ylkfM;k ftyk mn;iqj ds fo#) jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds rgr vkjksi i=& vkjksi la[;k 1 ;g fd vki Jh x.ks'kdqekj fot;oxÊ;] Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd vksx.kk rglhy >kMksy ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq, fnukad 06-03-2017 ls 19-03-2017 rd fpfdRlk vodk'k esa jgus dk çkFkZuk i= çLrqr dj fnukad 20-03-2017 dks rglhy dk;kZy; >kMksy esa mifLFkfr nhA rnqijkUr fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 22-03-2017 dk vkdfLed vodk'k çkFkZuk i= çsf"kr dj vodk'k Loh—r djk;s fcuk çLFkku dj fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 26-04-2018 rd dqy 402 fnuksa rd fcuk l{ke Loh—fr ds eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgsA mä vofèk ds nkSjku jkT; ljdkj ds egRoiw.kZ dk;Z tekcUnh lsxzhxs'ku ,oa jktLo uD'kksa esa rjehe dk;Z fd;k tk jgk FkkA mDr vof/k esa rglhynkj >kMksy }kjk vkidks mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ fy[kk x;kA fdUrq vki }kjk mä i=ksa dk dksbZ larks"kçn tokc ugha fn;s tkus ls rglhynkj >kMksy }kjk vkids fo:) dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;kA uksfVl dk vki }kjk dksbZ tokc çLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ls rglhynkj >kMksy us jktLFkku lsok fu;e ds fu;e 86 ds rgr vkidks uksfVl tkjh fd;kA rn~ mijkUr vki fnukad 27-04-2018 dks rglhy dk;kZy; >kMksy esa mifLFkr gq,A vr% vki fcuk l{ke Loh—fr@vodk'k Loh—r djk;s] fnukad 21-03-2017 ls 26-04-2018 rd ¼dqy 402 fnu½ LoSPNk ls jktdh; drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds vkjksih gSA tSlk fd vfHkdFku fooj.k i= 1 ij vafdr gSA | |||
|
| lgh@& ¼fc".kq pj.k efYyd½ ftyk dyDVj ¼Hkw-v-½ mn;iqj^^ | ||
2. On receipt of the aforestated charge-sheet the petitioner denied the allegations vide his reply dated 12.11.2018 and he also explained the reasons for his absence. The petitioner in his reply also stated that time and again he had applied for leave and extension thereof. The petitioner requested that since he remained on leave for reasons beyond his control, the leave may be sanctioned in his favour and disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge-sheet dated 17.09.2018 may be dropped.
3. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving reply from the petitioner decided to conduct an enquiry against him and the SDO, Jhadol was appointed as an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner.
4. The Inquiry Officer vide its notice dated 27.12.2018 called upon the petitioner to join and participate in the departmental enquiry in person, while submitting his explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner after receiving the notice dated 27.12.2018 submitted a reply to the Inquiry Officer reiterating the reasons for his absence as mentioned in his reply dated 12.11.2018.
5. The Departmental Representative also submitted his response before Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 08.01.2019 mentioning therein, the details regarding the intimation and the request submitted by the petitioner for granting leave time and again. The Departmental Representative in his response/reply also stated that the case for regularisation of 402 days leave (from 21.03.2017 to 26.04.2018) taken by the petitioner without permission has already been forwarded to the office of District Collector, Udaipur, therefore, if the period of absence of the petitioner is regularised by sanctioning/regularising the same, the Departmental Representative does not have any objectio
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for the accused to present their case.
Rule 56 of SFCI Employee (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, there is no provision for filing of Review Appeal by an employee.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing defense opportunities, failure of which can breach principles of natural justice, but penalties imposed for gross indi....
Lack of cooperation and failure to provide justification for non-participation in disciplinary proceedings can lead to the court upholding the penalty of removal from service.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the absence was willful and the disciplinary process was properly followed, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review.
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
