IMPORTANT POINT
The enhancement of disciplinary punishment must adhere to procedural safeguards, including time limitations and the right to representation, as mandated by Rule 34 of the CCA Rules and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority vide an order dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed a review before the Reviewing Authority, which instead turned out to be a self goal, as the punishment was rather enhanced to removal from service vide an order dated 05.10.2009 (Annex.9), the petitioner is before this Court assailing both the aforesaid orders, operation of which was stayed vide interim order dated 26.11.2010, which subsists even as on date.

2. Relevant facts of the case are as below:

2.1. The petitioner, a Physician, while working on the post of Junior Specialist, was served with a charge-sheet dated 11.07.2000 (Annex.1), qua his absence without leave. Disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. Vide the inquiry report dated 23.12.2002 (Annex.3) petitioner was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him.

2.2. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, who issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annex.5), however, Disciplinary Authority straightway awarded a punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide his order dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6).

2.3. Assailing the punishment, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan. Vide impugned order dated 05.10.2009, Reviewing Authority instead of enhanced the punishment to that of removal from service. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The defence taken in reply on behalf of the respondents is that the Inquiry Officer conducted shoddy inquiry by not appreciating the documentary evidence adduced by the department. The documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner. It was in this premise that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was awarded taking a lenient view though the petitioner deserved a much harsher treatment. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Governor being a Reviewing Authority is fully justified in enhancement of punishment rightly deserved by the petitioner, given his misconduct. Therefore, order of removal from service does not warrant any interference by this Court.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions, which are on the same lines as the respective pleadings of the parties and have perused the record of the case file. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording reasons thereof in the succeeding paragraphs.

4.1. First and foremost, let us see whether the petitioner deserves enhancement of punishment by way of removal from service. In this context Rule 34 of the CCA Rules may first be seen. For ready reference, Rule 34 is reproduced herein-below:

“34. Governor's power to review. –Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Governor may, on his own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review any order which is made or appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by rule 35 and, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary:

(a) Confirm, modify or set aside the orders.

(b) Impose any penalties or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order.

(c) Remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) Pass such other orders as he deems fit:

(i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty:

(ii) if the Governor proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, he shall s