Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1071
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
SUMER SINGH RAGHAW – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CW / 5865 / 2001
Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC
The court established that while misconduct was proven, disciplinary penalties must be proportionate, leading to a reduction in the imposed sanction.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - The petitioner challenged the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments imposed by the respondents for not handing over charge post-relieving, based on conflicting audit reports regarding deficit articles. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Misconduct - The court found that failure to hand over charge and obey transfer orders constituted misconduct. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Proportionality of Punishment - The court held that the punishment imposed was disproportionate and modified it to stoppage of one annual increment. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced multiple charges including failure to hand over charge after transfer, leading to deficit articles being reported in audits with conflicting values.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed the original punishment excessive and reduced it to one annual increment.
Issues: The court addressed whether it could interfere with the factual findings of the disciplinary inquiry and the appropriateness of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the misconduct was established, the penalty should be proportionate to the offense, leading to a reduction in the punishment.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with the modification of the penalty.
Order :
1. The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.11.2001 passed by the respondents, by which the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that two different charge-sheets with three different charges were served upon the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply to all the charges, but without taking a note of the reply, the order impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that the charge against the petitioner was that he did not handover the charge after his relieving and when inspection was done, various articles were not found. Counsel submits that two different audits were conducted and every time, the audit party submitted conflicting reports with regard to deficit articles and their value. Counsel submits that in the three audit reports dated 30.05.1992, the value of deficit articles was found as Rs.19,678/- Rs.31,870/- and Rs.61,335/-. Counsel submits that subsequently, when other audit was conducted, the value of deficit article was found to be Rs.550/-. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents were not clear and specific about their charges and without taking into account the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was transferred and in-spite of getting order of his transfer, he did not handover the charge to the person concerned and when the inspection was done, shortage of several articles were found to be deficit in the audit proceedings. Counsel submits that accordingly charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after holding inquiry, the charges were found to be proved and even, the reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into count and accordingly the impugned punishment order has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that three charges were levelled against the petitioner including the charge of not handing over the charge after relieving and non-obedience towards the commands of the higher officers for handing over the charge to the person concerned and certain deficit goods were found when the inspection of the record was done by the audit party. On the basis of the aforesaid three charges, a domestic inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, two different replies were submitted, but the same were not taken into count.
6. The impugned order indicates that even though the reply was submitted by the petitioner after a slight delay, the contents of the same were still taken into count. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is that 'whether this Court can interfere with the finding of fact recorded against the petitioner after holding inquiry against him.
7. Looking to the charges framed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and looking towards two different audit reports revealing contradictory findings, it is clear that certain deficit articles were there at the time of inspection. The petitioner did not handover the charge in-spite of his transfer and he has failed to obey the commands of the higher officials, such an act definitely amounts to misconduct on his part.
8. The employee is not said to be relieved from his office unless, he hands over the charge to the other incumbent, who has joined the place of posting after such transfer, but looking to the fact that the order of punishment i.e. withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect appears to be on higher side, a lesser punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner.
8. This Court is conscious of the fact th
