1. Challenge to disciplinary penalty order withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 716
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anand Sharma, J.
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri U.C. Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
The Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12187 of 2014
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Important Points
"Consideration" in disciplinary proceedings requires active application of mind and recording of cogent reasons. In summary procedures for minor penalties, failure to provide reasoned findings regarding the delinquent's defense vitiates the order, as mere formal recitals of "consideration" do not satisfy principles of natural justice.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Jaipur Discom Employees Classification Control and Appeal Regulations: Reg.6
Headnote
(A) Service Regulations - Regulation 6 - Disciplinary proceedings for minor penalty - Meaning of 'consideration' - The term 'consider' implies active application of mind, thinking over, and weighing relevant material (Paras 17, 18 and 19) - Mere recital that the reply and records were 'considered' without discussing the contents of the defense or assigning reasons is an empty formality and reflects non-application of mind (Para 20).
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement to record reasons - An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons for its decision to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness (Para 21) - In summary proceedings for minor penalties, the obligation to record clear and cogent reasons is enhanced as the written reply is the sole substantive defense (Para 25).
(C) Appellate Review - An appellate authority cannot mechanically affirm a penalty order without independent consideration of the grounds urged or the legality of the punishment (Para 27).
Facts of the case:
An employee was issued a charge-sheet for irregularities involving the dispatch of new wires instead of scrap, causing financial loss to the employer. The employee denied the charges in a written reply, attributing the error to subordinates and citing physical limitations. A penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed. The subsequent appeal was rejected. Both the penalty and appellate orders stated that the record and reply had been "considered" but provided no specific reasoning.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the orders failed the test of "consideration" as neither the contents of the reply nor the verification report were analyzed or discussed. The absence of reasons made the orders cryptic and arbitrary, leading to a failure in the decision-making process.
Issues: Whether the use of the word "considered" in a penalty and appellate order is sufficient to meet the legal requirement of active application of mind in the absence of specific reasons for the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement to "consider" a representation necessitates an objective evaluation and the recording of reasons for the decision. In disciplinary matters, especially summary procedures, a reasoned order is a safeguard against arbitrariness and a prerequisite for satisfying the principle of audi alteram partem. An order lacking reasons is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed; penalty order and appellate order quashed and set aside.
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement to record reasons - An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons for its decision to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness (Para 21) - In summary proceedings for minor penalties, the obligation to record clear and cogent reasons is enhanced as the written reply is the sole substantive defense (Para 25).
(C) Appellate Review - An appellate authority cannot mechanically affirm a penalty order without independent consideration of the grounds urged or the legality of the punishment (Para 27).
Facts of the case:
An employee was issued a charge-sheet for irregularities involving the dispatch of new wires instead of scrap, causing financial loss to the employer. The employee denied the charges in a written reply, attributing the error to subordinates and citing physical limitations. A penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed. The subsequent appeal was rejected. Both the penalty and appellate orders stated that the record and reply had been "considered" but provided no specific reasoning.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the orders failed the test of "consideration" as neither the contents of the reply nor the verification report were analyzed or discussed. The absence of reasons made the orders cryptic and arbitrary, leading to a failure in the decision-making process.
Issues: Whether the use of the word "considered" in a penalty and appellate order is sufficient to meet the legal requirement of active application of mind in the absence of specific reasons for the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement to "consider" a representation necessitates an objective evaluation and the recording of reasons for the decision. In disciplinary matters, especially summary procedures, a reasoned order is a safeguard against arbitrariness and a prerequisite for satisfying the principle of audi alteram partem. An order lacking reasons is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed; penalty order and appellate order quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Saugath Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Dr. Saugath Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued defence not considered; respondents argued careful consideration shown in penalty order. Both support their positions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Mere use of 'considered' in order not valid; active application of mind and reasoning required per precedent. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. In minor penalty summary proceedings, disciplinary authority must record clear reasons showing objective consideration of delinquent's defence. (Para 25 , 26 )
5. Writ petition allowed; penalty and appellate orders quashed for lack of reasons and non-application of mind. (Para 28 )
6. Does mere use of the word 'considered' in a disciplinary order satisfy the requirement of consideration?
No. 'Consider' requires active application of mind, thinking over, and weighing relevant material; a bald recital is insufficient. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Is recording of reasons mandatory in a disciplinary order imposing a minor penalty after summary proceedings?
Yes. In summary proceedings where the delinquent's only defence is a written reply, the authority must record clear and cogent reasons for its decision. (Para 25 , 26 )
8. Can an appellate authority mechanically affirm a disciplinary order without independent reasoning?
No. The appellate authority must meaningfully review the grounds of appeal and the punishment; a mechanical exercise defeats the purpose of appeal. (Para 27 )
9. Can reasons for a disciplinary order be supplemented by file notes not disclosed to the delinquent employee?
No. The reasons must be part of the disciplinary and appellate orders; respondents cannot supplement them with undisclosed material. (Para 23 )
10. Does the seriousness of the charges dispense with the disciplinary authority's duty to record reasons?
No. Even serious misconduct requires the authority to demonstrate through reasoned findings how charges are proved despite the defence. (Para 26 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged penalty order dated 03.01.2013 issued by the Secretary (Administration), whereby penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has also assailed the order dated 25.07.2014, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has also been rejected.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Grade-I) in erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board and was further promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 02.05.1998. On disbundling of erstwhile RSEB, the petitioner was transferred to respondent-Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL).
3. One memorandum/charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.03.2012 leveling allegations of committing irregularities as well as making an attempt to cause heavy financial loss to the respondent-Corporation. As per the memorandum/charge-sheet dated 01.03.2012, although the old/unutilized/scrap G.I. wire was to be auctioned, yet instead thereof new wires weighing 1465 Kg were loaded in a truck for the purpose of taking away in the garb of scrap wire and thus, it was an effort to inflict financial harm to the Corporation which has happened on account of dereliction of duties by the petitioner and since, this incident was also published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika, therefore, reputation of respondent-Nigam has also been lowered down. The aforesaid memorandum was issued under Regulation No.6 of Jaipur Discom Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1962, which was meant for initiating proceedings for imposing minor penalty.
4. Reply of memorandum/charge-sheet was filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which he categorically denied the charges and it was mentioned in the reply that although, as main store in- charge, directions were given by the petitioner to the store clerks/helpers for loading the scrap, however, without there being any knowledge of the petitioner, at their own new wires were loaded in the truck. It was submitted that in case, any irregularities have been committed by the store keeper/clerk/ward keeper, then, that has been done behind the back of the petitioner who was not there at the time of loading of the truck. It was further stated that the petitioner is physically disabled person and faces difficulty in standing at a place for a longer time. Since, loading of the truck of the said wires were to take time and it was done in late evening in December during darkness, the petitioner was not there for physically verifying the bundles of wires. It was also mentioned that as soon as he came to know with regard to irregularities, he himself took action for stopping such irregularity and the new bundles of wires were placed at proper place. By mentioning such facts, he prayed for dropping the disciplinary enquiry and to exonerate him.
5. Thereafter, penalty order dated 03.01.2013 was passed by the Secretary (Administration), whereby the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Penalty order dated 03.01.2013 is hereby reproduced:-
“A charge sheet under Regulation 6 of the Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1962 was served upon Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, AEN vide memorandum No.JPD/Admn./Eng./FC-1871/D.606 dated 01.03.2012. He was alleged that while working as ACOS(O&M), Jaipur Discom, Alwar, he failed to discharge his duties in right manner and has been alleged for unauthorise delivery of new G.I. wire bundles weighing 1465 Kg. Of scrap materila to M/s Lalaram Mohalla Khadana, Alwar, auctioned in Circle Stores, Alwar on 22.12.2011 (Night) as indicated in detail in the statement of allegations served upon him. He furnished his reply, explained his position and denied the allegations. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority-CMD on 26.12.2012. After c
