Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, BIPIN GUPTA, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh - Respondent
D.B. Spl. App. Writ No. 548 of 2023
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Appellant : Ayush Gehlot
For the Respondents: Yaman Rajpurohit, A.R. Godara
The imposition of penalties must adhere to prescribed procedural requirements; failure to comply can render disciplinary actions unjust.
Headnote:(A) CCA Rules - Rule 17 - Procedure for imposing minor penalties - Order of punishment of ‘Censure’ imposed without proper inquiry or service of notice deemed unjustifiable - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards prior to penalty imposition. (Paras 3 and 12)
(B) Right to fair hearing - Essential requirement of providing notice, opportunity to present representation and reasons for decisions - The court stressed on the significance of these procedural rights in disciplinary actions. (Paras 6 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal stems from the imposition of a minor penalty of censure on the respondent, with prior disciplinary proceedings noted as inadequately conducted, leading to the quashing of the ruling against the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court reaffirmed the validity of the imposition of censure on proper procedural basis and set aside the prior appellate decision.
Issues: Did the lower authority comply with the necessary procedural requirements before imposing censure?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that all necessary procedural requirements were met as per Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority.
Result: The present appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural safeguards in disciplinary actions. (Para 4) |
| 2. right to fair hearing emphasizes the need for notice and representation. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. assessment of delays and their management in administrative duties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. affirmation of disciplinary action procedure adherence. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the appellant - State submits that an order imposing punishment of ‘Censure’ has been imposed on the present petitioner, who holds the post of Assistant Administrative Officer strictly in accordance with law.
2. By virtue of order dated 19.10.2022, a writ petition against the same order had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge while reversing the finding of the Appellate Authority’s order dated 01.08.2019 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.03.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has drawn attention of the Court towards the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2022, which reads as under :
“Counsel for the petitioner submitted that only an explanation was called from him vide communication dated 09.10.2017 to which a detailed reply was given by him. After the submission of the reply by him, no further proceedings were taken up by the Department in terms of the Service Rules as provided and straightaway the impugned order has been passed.
When inquired upon, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any document available on record which could show that any notice of Enquiry in terms of the provisions as provided under the Rules of 1958 had been served on the petitioner before imposing the punishment vide the impugned order.
In view of the said fact, the order impugned cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the same has been passed without adhering to the basic principles and the provisions of law. No enquiry or disciplinary proceedings have admittedly been initiated against the petitioner before imposing the punishment.
Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the order impugned dated 14.03.2018 and the appellate order dated 01.08.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellants thereafter has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 14.03.2018 (Annex.8). The paragraphs of the aforesaid order referred by learned counsel are reproduced herein below:
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order was speaking one and an opportunity of hearing was accorded. Thereafter, the reply as filed was taken on record and the version of the respondent was also taken on record and accordingly, a considered order was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and submits that the minor penalty of censure has been imposed without stating any reason.
7. The Rule 17 of the CCA Rules is reproduced as under :
“Procedure for imposing minor penalties.–
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after – (a)The Government Servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make;
(aa) holding an enquiry, in the manner laid down in Rule 16, in every case, in which it is proposed to with–hold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, or with cumulative effect for any period or so as to adversely affect the amount of pension payable to him or in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(b) such representation, if any submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a) and the record of enquiry, if any, held under clause (aa), is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority;
(c) an opportunity of personal hearing is given by the Disciplinary Authority to the Government Servant to explain his case,
