The main legal point established is that Rule 53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 empowers the government to call for the record of a case, confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by a subordinate authority, and take necessary action, including imposing penalties, after consultation with the Public Service Commission.

1. While working as Private Secretary with the Commissioner of Vigilance, the petitioner is stated to have divulged vital and sensitive information to the suspects in Vigilance related cases. Petitioner also cautioned the accused to remove incriminating evidence pertaining to their cases. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, in which he is stated to have participated. The conclusion of the enquiry resulted in issuing warning to the petitioner and this warning was required to be placed in his ACR dossiers.

2. It seems that on re-consideration of the case of petitioner by the Government under Rule 53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, fresh show cause notice dated 27-4-2006 was issued to the petitioner, in which it was proposed to impose major penalty on him instead of punishment of censure. It is this show cause notice, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

3. The petitioner claims that issuance of aforesaid show cause notice under Rule 53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, tantamounts in reviewing the punishment imposed by the competent authority vide its order dated 6-9-2005. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that consultation with the Public Service Commission in terms of section 133 sub clause 3C of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir could have been done prior to the imposition of punishment of censure on 6-9-2005 and not after the order was passed. No opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner while issuing the impugned order. It is averred that major penalty of reduction in rank can only be invoked when Rules 33 and 34 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, have been strictly complied with.

4. On the other hand, stand of the respondents is that imposition of punishment was a lenient view taken, as allegations against the petitioner were of serious nature. It is stated that petitioner established a contact with one Junior Engineer namely Jaipal Sharma and divulged him the secret information regarding the complaint and advised him to remain cautious. Petitioner had also contacted with one Ashwani Kumar, AEE. UEED and accepted bribe from him. The said allegations were fully established after a full dressed enquiry. It is further stated by the respondents that allegations leveled and proved against the petitioner being of extraordinarily serious nature, deserved imposition of a proportionate penalty upon the petitioner. It is stated that order of censure dated 6-9-2005 was required under rules to be issued after the approval of the Chief Minister.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. After imposition of penalty under Rule 30 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the Government has the power to confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority. This power has been exercised by the respondents while issuing fresh show cause notice seeking to impose major penalty of reduction in rank. In order to appreciate this controversy, Rule-53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, is reproduced as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, of its own or otherwise, call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in exercise of any powers conferred on such authority by their rules, and :

confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; or

direct that a further inquiry be held in the case; or

reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; or

make such other order in the case as it may deem fit;

Provided that where it is proposed to enhance the penalty imposed by any such order, the Government servant concerned shall be given a opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement :

Provided further that the period of limitation for an application for revision on behalf of an aggrieved party shall be thirty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document