Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11120 of 2008
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Pareek
For the Respondent: Ms. Manju Joshi-AGC
The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions mandates that penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and excessive punishments can be challenged in judicial review.
Headnote:
(A) Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Disciplinary action - Penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments imposed for minor mistake in revenue record - Court found that six out of seven charges were not proved, and the remaining charge was minor and inadvertent - The punishment was deemed disproportionate and arbitrary. (Paras 6, 8, 12, 13)
(B) Judicial review - Scope of interference in disciplinary matters - The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in punishment, stating that excessive penalties can be challenged under judicial review. (Paras 7, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary order imposing a penalty for incorrectly entering a name in the revenue record, arguing that the mistake was minor and had no mala fide intention. The appeal against the penalty was rejected without proper consideration.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct and quashed the disciplinary orders.
Issues: The main issues were whether the punishment was excessive and whether the mistake constituted misconduct warranting such a penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the minor nature of the misconduct, emphasizing the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions.
Result: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside.
Order :
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.06.2007 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 19.04.2008 and the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been upheld.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner with seven charges levelled therein and out of which six charges were not found to be proved against the petitioner and charge No. 7 was partly proved against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the charge against the petitioner was that correct name of the Khatedar was “Jamni” S/o Ramnarayan, but due to mistake on the part of the petitioner, the name “Jamni” was entered as “Jagni” in the Jamabandi/revenue record. Counsel submits that the aforesaid mistake on the part of the petitioner was minor and inadvertent but this minor mistake, on the part of the petitioner, was taken seriously and an exorbitant punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him which has affected his service career. Counsel submits that a departmental appeal against the aforesaid order was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 wherein the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid mistake has occurred inadvertently, therefore a prayer was made for quashing the punishment order. Counsel submits that without considering the plea, taken by the petitioner, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 19.04.2008. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, interference of this Court is warranted.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that because of a wrong entry made with incorrect name in the revenue record, chaos was created with regard to the name of the Khatedar. Counsel submits that the correct name of the Khatedar was ‘Jamni’ and not ‘Jagni’. The aforesaid act of the petitioner amounts to misconduct and that is why the impugned punishment order was passed, which requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner with seven charges levelled therein, out of which six charges were not found to be proved and charge No. 7 was found to be partly proved against the petitioner that because of mistake on his part, the name of the Khatedar -”Jamni” S/o Ramnarayan was entered as “Jagni” S/o Ramnarayan. The aforesaid act has been admitted by the petitioner stating that, the same has occurred inadvertently and there was no mala fide intention behind the same and this fact was overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid act of the petitioner was treated as misconduct on his part and accordingly, he was punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect.
7. This court is conscious enough about the scope of interference with the decision of Disciplinary Authority. The scope of interference is very narrow and limited in such like matters, but the High Court has powers of moulding the relief in case where the punishment/penalty imposed shocks the judicial conscience.
8. The principle of proportionality of punishment vis-a-vis misconduct have been recognised by the Courts of various European countries as well as British Courts. It has time and a
