Back
1975 Supreme(J&K) 86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Jaswant Singh,Mian Jalal-ud-Din,Mufti Baha-ud-Din Farooqi,A.S. Anand, JJ.
Syed Sharif-ud-Din - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 137/1973
Decided On : 10 December, 1975
Advocate For Appellant: S.T. Hussain
Advocate For Respondent: O.N. Tikku
Advocate For Respondent: A.K. Malik
The imposition of penalties on a delinquent Government Officer under Rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 is Justiciable and requires good and sufficient reasons.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - CIVIL SERVICES - PUNISHMENT - NOTICE - EVIDENCE - REVIEW - SPEAKING ORDER - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, Rules 30, 35, 55, 56.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Forest Ranger, was entrusted with the additional work of administering and managing a Potato farm run by the Forest Department. A complaint was made to the authorities that due to the petitioner's negligence, 350 quintals of potatoes cultivated in the farm were allowed to rot in bags outside the fence enclosing the farm and that the crop over an area of 10 acres was not harvested in time. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his superior, D.F.O. Soil Conservation Division, calling upon them to explain why they allowed the potatoes to rot and why the crop over an area of 10 acres was not harvested in time. Both the petitioner and D.F.O. submitted their explanations, on a consideration whereof the Government issued an order stopping their one year's increment for the indifference and negligence shown by them. On receipt of a reference from the Accountant General, the Government directed that stoppage of one year's increment of D.F.O. would not have the effect of postponing his future increments but no such order was issued in respect of the petitioner. Both the petitioner and D.F.O. submitted separate review petitions to the Government seeking cancellation of the aforesaid order stopping their increments, whereupon the Secretary to Government, Forest Department, invited comments from the C.C.F. The C.C.F. informed the Secretary that there was no slackness or negligence on the part of the D.F.O. or his staff and recommended that the punishments awarded to D.F.O. and the petitioner be "rescinded". The recommendation of the C.C.F was accepted in case of D.F.O. and his review Petition was accepted but review petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner served a notice on the Government under section 80 C.P.C. seeking restoration of his full pay whereupon the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, kept on assuring him "that his case would be reviewed". As the aforesaid assurance did not materialise, the petitioner filed a petition in the court for a writ of Certiorari quashing the aforesaid Government orders.
Finding of the Court:
1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected because of the delay occasioned in filing the same. 2. No show cause notice against the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was necessary to be given to him. 3. There were no good and sufficient reasons for withholding the increment of the petitioner. 4. The order rejecting the review petition should have been a speaking order.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be rejected because of the delay occasioned in filing the same; 2. Whether any show cause notice against the punishment proposed to be imposed upon him was necessary to be given to the petitioner; 3. Whether there were good and sufficient reasons for withholding the increment of the petitioner; and 4. Whether the order rejecting the review petition should have been a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delay in filing the writ petition has been sufficiently explained by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit filed by him and as there is merit in this petition, the court will not dismiss the same. 2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1124, a show cause notice against the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was not necessary to be given to him. 3. A plain reading of Rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 shows that the penalties mentioned therein can be imposed on a delinquent Government Officer for good and sufficient reasons and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Whether there are good and sufficient reasons for the infliction of any of the aforesaid penalties has to be decided with reference to the facts of each case but there can be no manner of doubt that the imposition thereof is in view of the use of the expression "good and sufficient reasons" Justiciable. In the present case, there is no evidence or cogent material to sustain the finding of guilty against the petitioner, therefore, there was no good and sufficient reason for passing the impugned order stopping the increment of the petitioner. 4. The order in question pertains to the punishment awarded to the petitioner and affects his service record and valuable right, it cannot but be treated as quasi-judicial order and ought to have been a speaking one.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed.
1. While posted as Range Officer, Soil Conservation, Anantnag Range, in May 1967 A.D, the petitioner Syed Sharif-ud Din Ahmed Naqishbandi, was entrusted by his D.F.O. with the additional work of administering and managing the Potato farm run by the Forest Department at Daksum. Accordingly the petitioner took up the work and started sowing of "Kufri Sindhuri" potato seed tubers, an exotic and late maturing variety, imported into the State by the Agriculture Department from Punjab which was supplied to the Forest Department in May 1967. On a complaint being made to the authorities after the harvesting season, the Additional Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department (Forest) vide his No. FST/Plan/40/60 dated March 30, 1968, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and his superior, Shri G. Q. Reshi, D.F.O, Soil Conservation Division, Bijbehara, calling upon them to explain why they allowed 350 quintals of potatoes cultivated in the aforesaid farm to rot in bags outside the fence enclosing the farm and why crop over an area of 10 acres was not harvested in time.
The notice addressed to the petitioner ran as follows:
"There are allegations that due to your indifference inattention and carelessness 358 quintals of potatoes cultivated, in Daksum farm were allowed to rot in bags outside the enclosing fence of the farm and that the crop over an area of ten acres was not harvested in time Before any further action is taken against you, I am directed to request you to kindly explain your position in detail. The explanation should indicate how far and why you or anyone else is responsible for this. This explanation must reach the undersigned under a confidential over within ten days failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say.
Sd/- A. N. Dhar ,
Addl. Secretary to Govt.
Agriculture Department (Forests)"
2. The petitioner as well as Shri G. Q. Reshi furnished their explanation, on a consideration whereof the Government issued Order No. FST-119 of 1968 dated July 31, 1968, stopping their one years increment for the indifference and negligence shown by them in not harvesting in time the potato crop at Duksum Potato Farm from the aforesaid are of 10 acres before the advent of winter.
3. On receipt of a reference from the Accountant General, the Government vide its order No. FST/5 of 1969 dated January 2, 1969, directed that stoppage of one years increment of Shri G. Q. Reshi, D.F.O, would not have the effect of postponing his future increments but no such order was issued in respect of the petitioner.
4. Both petitioner and Shri G. Q. Reshi submitted separate review petitions to the Government seeking cancellation of the aforesaid order stopping their increments, whereupon the Secretary to Government, Forest Department, vide his No. FST/40/Plan/69 dated November 17, 1969, invited comments from the C.C.F. The C.C.F. vide his No. 6380/GX/18 Pototoes dated December 12, 1969, thereupon wrote to the Secretary to Government, Forest Department, saying that he had gone into the matter in full detail and found that in the harvesting season of 1967-68 there was early and heavy snow fall at Duksum which retarted the work of harvesting which had been started in October 1967. The C.C.F also informed the Secretary of his Department that Duksum had maximum winter precipitation because of its being situated at a high altitude. The C.C.F further informed the Secretary that the D.F.O. and his staff had been taking keen interest to complete the harvesting work in time but could not fight the vagaries of nature in the months of November and December when there were repeated snow falls combined with biting frost. The C.C.F. also assured the Secretary that he was confident that there was no slackness or negligence on the part of the D F O or his staff and recommended that the punishments awarded to Shri G.Q. Reshi, D.F.O. and to the petitioner be "rescinded". The recommendation of the C.C.F was accepted in case of Sh
