1. Petitioner challenged penalty order withholding one increment without cumulative effect, imposed under minor penalty proceedings, in disciplinary enquiry for alleged unauthorized delivery of scrap wires. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 740
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
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.
In disciplinary proceedings, 'consideration' requires active application of mind and objective evaluation of the defence, evidenced by recording cogent reasons. Mere bald recitals of 'consideration' without discussing relevant material or assigning reasons vitiate the order as a violation of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Meaning of 'consideration' in penalty orders - The term 'consider' implies an active application of mind, thinking over, pondering, and weighing of all relevant material. A statutory authority's formation of opinion must reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material on record, and the order itself should reveal such application. Mere use of the word 'considered' in a disciplinary or appellate order, without referring to the contents of the reply or analyzing the relevant records, is an empty formality and eye-wash in the eye of law. (Paras 17, 18, 20)
(B) Administrative Law - Recording of Reasons - Principle of Natural Justice - An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions is required to record reasons for its decision to exclude chances of arbitrariness and ensure fairness in decision-making. Reasons must be clear and explicit to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - Minor Penalty and Summary Procedure - Where a summary procedure is adopted instead of a full-fledged enquiry, the obligation to record clear and cogent reasons in the penalty order becomes more pronounced, as the written reply constitutes the sole substantive defence available to the employee. A penalty order bereft of reasons or containing only a bald recital of conclusions is vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. (Para 25)
(D) Appellate Authority - Scope of Review - An appellate authority is expected to act as a forum for meaningful review and correction. Disposing of a statutory appeal in a mechanical manner by merely affirming the penalty order without independent consideration of the grounds urged defeats the purpose of the departmental appeal. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
An employee was imposed a penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect for alleged irregularities in the loading of scrap wire, where new wires were allegedly loaded instead of scrap. The employee submitted a reply denying the charges, stating that the irregularity happened without his knowledge and citing a physical disability that prevented him from personally verifying the bundles. The penalty was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority. The employee challenged both the penalty order and the appellate order on the grounds of non-consideration of his defence and the lack of reasoned findings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority referred to the contents of the reply or analyzed the fact-verification report in their respective orders. The orders were cryptic and failed to assign any reasons for arriving at the conclusion of guilt. The mere recital that records had been "carefully considered" did not satisfy the legal requirement of an objective application of mind.
Issues: Whether the mere use of the word "considered" in the penalty and appellate orders constitutes valid and objective consideration in law, and whether the absence of recorded reasons vitiates the decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: Legal "consideration" requires an objective application of mind and the weighing of relevant material, which must be reflected in the order through the recording of reasons. The failure to record reasons in a quasi-judicial order, especially during summary proceedings for a minor penalty, violates the principles of natural justice and renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed; penalty order and appellate order quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to consider his reply and fact verification report; respondents contended bare recital of consideration sufficed and affirmed orders valid. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Mere use of word 'considered' does not constitute valid objective consideration; authorities must actively apply mind, discuss, weigh, and analyse material, and record reasons in order. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Even in minor penalty summary proceedings, disciplinary and appellate authorities must record clear, cogent reasons addressing delinquent's defence; absence of reasons vitiates decision-making. (Para 25 , 26 )
5. Writ petition allowed; penalty and appellate orders quashed, petitioner entitled to consequential relief within 60 days. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. Does mere use of the word 'considered' in a penalty order satisfy the legal requirement of objective consideration?
No. 'Consider' means active application of mind, thinking over, pondering and weighing relevant material. A bald recital without discussion or analysis of the reply and material is empty formality and eye wash. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Is an administrative authority required to record reasons for its decision even when confirming an earlier order?
Yes. Recording reasons excludes arbitrariness and ensures fairness. An affirming authority need not give separate reasons if it agrees with reasons in the original order, but the original order must itself contain clear and explicit reasons. (Para 21 )
8. Can an appellate authority mechanically affirm a penalty order without independent consideration of the grounds urged?
No. The appellate authority must act as a forum of meaningful review, independently consider grounds and legality/proportionality of punishment. Mechanical affirmation defeats the purpose of appeal and is arbitrary. (Para 27 )
9. In summary minor penalty proceedings, what is the disciplinary authority's obligation regarding the delinquent's reply?
The reply is the sole substantive defence; the authority must objectively consider each material contention and reflect such consideration in the final order. Absence of reasons renders the order vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. (Para 25 , 26 )
10. Can the respondents supplement a penalty order with reasons contained in note-sheets not reflected in the order?
No. The penalty and appellate orders cause prejudice and adverse service record impact. Reasons for holding the delinquent guilty must be part of the order itself; respondents cannot supplement the order with other material not supplied to the delinquent. (Para 23 )
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 ca
