Back
1967 Supreme(Raj) 65
Rajasthan High Court
Changani, J.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Ratanlal - Respondents
S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 501 of 1961
Decided On : March 28, 1967
M.L. Shrimali Dy. Govt. Advocate, for Appellant; B.J. Mohanani, for Respondent
Headnote:(a) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, R. 16—Departmental enquiry not a formality—Rules as prescribed or in absence of prescribed rules, rules of natural justice to be followed.(b) Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, R. 16—Reduction not same as reduction in rank—Reduction in time scale—Prescribed procedure to be followed.
The Departmental enquiry is not an empty formality but is a serious proceeding of a quasi-judicial nature and should be conducted in a manner as to ensure a fair deal to the Government servant proceeded against and to avoid causing an apprehension that he will not be getting a fair trial. If there are any rules prescribing a procedure for such an enquiry those rules should be complied with substantially, if not literally. If there are no such rules, the principles of natural justice and fair play should be kept in view and the Government servant should be given an opportunity to defend himself so as to ensure the observance of principles of natural justice. While every trivial breach of rule will not have the effect of invalidating the enquiry a noncompliance of the rules which results in the denial of reasonable opportunity to delinquent Government servant and a violation of the principle of natural justice cannot but vitiate the enquiry. (Para 11)
It is significant that Rule 16 uses the expression "reduction" only and not the expression used in the Constitution "reduction in rank". It will be hardly proper to read "reduction" as used in Rule 16 as equivalent to "reduction in rank" Rule 15 also uses the word "reduction" in relation to reduction to a lower post or time scale or lower stage in the time scale. On a consideration of the scheme of the rules and the language of Rules 15(3) and 16 it is clear that the procedure prescribed by Rule 16 has also to be adopted to punishment mentioned in Rule 15(3). In other words, even when an officer is punished by way of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale it was necessary under the rules in force at the time when the enquiry was held against the respondent that the procedure prescribed in Rule 16 should have been followed. (Para 16).
(a) The plaintiff is granted a declaration that the orders of Departmental Authorities evidenced by Ex. 5 and 6 are illegal, and contrary to law.
(b) The amount which has been withheld from the pay of the appellant amounting to Rs. 367/98 paisa was illegally withheld. The plaintiff is granted a decree for that amount.
(c) The judgment passed in this case will not prevent the Government from charge sheeting the appellant again in respect of the occurrence of 4.10.1961.
(d) The appellant will have costs of the appeal from respondent No. 1.
2. The facts leading to this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows.
3. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.12.1949 and was subsequently confirmed on 8.8.1952. In the month of October, 1951 he was stationed at Banner as a Sub-Inspector of the District Intelligence Branch (CID), Banner. In the discharge of his duties he arrested one Khanu Barber when the latter was seen coming from Pakistan with 11 thans of cloth. This Khanu Barber was produced in the Barmer Police Station but subsequently he was let off and not prosecuted. The plaintiff-respondent and Umed Singh, the Station House Officer, Incharge of the Police Station, Barmer and a Head Constable were suspected of dereliction of duty in connection with the arrest and release of Khanu Barber and it was considered proper to hold a departmental enquiry against them. On 24.1.1952 the plaintiff-respondent was served with a charge sheet by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Banner. The first charge alleged that he having arrested Khanu Baibar with 11 thans of smuggled cloth produced him in the Police Station, Barmer, but subsequently he was let off by Umed Singh and the plaintiff and was not produced before the Customs Authorities and that in doing so, he acted dishonestly. The second charge against the plaintiff-respondent was that Dharnidhar, Naraindas, Sheoshanker and Rawatmal had made entries in the Roznamcha dated 4.10.1951 about the incident relating to the arrest of Khanu Barber and the plaintiff respondent had subscribed his signatures in the Roznamcha but he got the signatures in the Roznamcha of Naraindas, Shiveshanker and Rawatmal erased and got the paper in Dharnidhars Roznamcha torn. Further after enquiry the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded findings against the plaintiff-respondent. The findings were sent through the Superintendent of Police, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur. The Deputy Inspector General of Police recorded the following findings against the plaintiff-respondent—
"The S. Is Umed Singh and Ratanlal conjointly conspired and let off the accused along with the camel They also prepared false farad and made false entries in the Police Record."
A finding was also recorded against Head Constable Harakchand. On the basis of these findings, the Deputy Inspector General of Police awarded the punishment of reduction in their pay by two increments for a period of two years.
4. The plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur but that proved unsuccessful.
5. The plaintiff, thereafter, after serving notice under sec. 80, Civil Procedure Code, filed a suit against the Rajasthan State, Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur praying for setting aside the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 11th August, 1953 and the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 11.7.1955, for the recovery of Rs. 367.98 paisa. The plaintiff-respondent challenged the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police on eleven grounds detailed in para 6 of the plaint. The important grounds may be noticed at this stage —
"6. (1) That no statement of allegations on which the char
