HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI RAMJI LAL GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 23554 / 2018
Order :
1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect has been passed. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and Revision Petition was filed, however both the Appeal and Revision Petition were rejected vide order dated 28.08.2012 and 20.06.2016 respectively. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) was served upon the petitioner with a charge that he was posted as Range Forest Officer at Ladpura and without seeking any permission in writing he got himself relieved and joined a new place of posting. Learned counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner is a gazetted officer and officer like the petitioner, is not supposed to seek any permission for relieving and even otherwise also no person joined on the post of petitioner, hence there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to seek any order in writing. Learned counsel submits that without considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, straightway the order impugned has been passed, without assigning any reason. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was issued to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply but without considering the contents of the reply and without holding any inquiry, straightway the impugned order was passed by which the petitioner has been punished.
6. It is a settled proposition of law that the Disciplinary Authority is supposed to pass a reasoned and a speaking order, but in the instant case, no reasons have been assigned and the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, hence under these circumstances, the impugned order and subsequent orders are liable to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.
7. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law.
8. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned orders, and failure to do so renders such orders invalid.
Disciplinary action can be taken against officers for misconduct reflecting on integrity, regardless of their judicial functions, and the correctness of charges cannot be examined in writ jurisdictio....
Disciplinary authorities must issue reasoned orders and apply due process to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice, safeguarding employees against arbitrary judgments.
A charge-sheet cannot be quashed merely because it is based on the same facts as an FIR; the validity of the charge-sheet is determined by the disciplinary authority.
A regular enquiry is mandatory in disciplinary proceedings, and findings from a preliminary enquiry cannot be used without providing the delinquent an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary proceedings; failure to provide an enquiry report and opportunity to respond violates an employee's rights.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural rules post charge-sheet and cannot impose penalties without conducting a proper inquiry, ensuring principles of natural justice are respected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.