D P. GUPTA, J.—The petitioner in this case was employed as an Amin in the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan. The case of petitioner is that be was initially employed on the post of an Amin by the order dated December 1, 1948 passed by the Settlement Commissioner of the former State of Udai-pur and that he was subsequently confirmed on the aforesaid post by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated March 21, 1957. While the petitioner was working on the post of an Amin, he was served with a memorandum calling upon him to show cause, along with a charge-3heet and a statement of allegations, by the Settlement Officer, Udaipur. The petitioner was, thus, informed that a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the Rules), has been started against him. The petitioner thereupon filed his written statement of defence and the Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry in which as many as 26 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department in respect of the six charges framed against the petitioner. The Settlement Officer by his order dated May 24, 1971, after discussing the evidence led before him in the departmental enquiry, came to the conclusion that charges Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were not proved against the petitioner, while charges Nos. 1,3 and 4 were found proved against him. The Settlement Officer also came to the conclusion that the imposition of the penalty of withholding two yearly grade increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect could be sufficient punishment, looking to the guilt of the petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid punishment was inflicted upon him. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer dated May 24, 1971 before the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, but the same was dismissed by the order dated October 18, 1972. A review petition against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated January 31, 1973 on the ground that a review petition was not maintainable in law.

2. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition, the penalty imposed upon him as a result of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Settlement Officer, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and it was only the appointing authority who was entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him According to the petitioner, as already stated above, he was appointed initially by the Settlement Commissioner of the former State of Udaipur and was also confirmed by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur and thus, the appointing authority was the Settlement Commissioner, so far as the petitioner was concerned. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the Settlement Officer was the disciplinary authority with regard to the petitioner as he was the Head of the Office and the petitioner was a ministerial Government servant. There can be no dispute that the petitioner was a ministerial Government servant and the Settlement Officer of the circle concerned is the Head of the Office, as specified in Schedule B appended to the Rules. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that in respect of the ministerial servants and Class IV servants, the Head of Office shall be authorised to inflict all penalties specified in Rule 14. Of course, on account of the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the penalty of dismissal or removal from service could not have been imposed upon the petitioner by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, namely, the Settlement Commissioner. But as the punishment of dismissal or removal from service has not been imposed upon the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated in the present case on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document