Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
REKHA BORANA
KAMALDAN CHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW/909/2019
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CHARGES - SPECIFICITY - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 16(2) - Charges framed against petitioner held not specific and clear - Charge-sheet quashed.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of an interim order dated 19.01.2019, whereby further proceedings in pursuance to the charge-sheet dated 12.06.2018 had been stayed. The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet was totally in contravention to Rule 16 Sub-Clause 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charges as framed in the charge-sheet dated 12.06.2018 were neither specific nor clear. The charges did not speak of any definite instance or any specific act of misconduct against the petitioner. The court observed that Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 makes it clear that the charges have to be mandatorily definite on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held.
Issues: Whether the charges framed against the petitioner were specific and clear as required under Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which provides that the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge-sheet dated 12.06.2018, but allowed the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 909/2019
Kamaldan Charan S/o Mooldan Charan, By caste Charan, Aged
about 41 years, R/o House No.H-40, Sunder Nagar, Beawar
Road, P.S. Ramganj, District Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan though the Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur through VC
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa through VC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/01/2022
Matter comes up on an application filed under Article 226(3)
of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated
19.01.2019, whereby further proceedings in pursuance to the
charge-sheet dated 12.06.2018 had been stayed.
By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter
is heard finally.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge-sheet
dated 12.06.2018 is totally in contravention to Rule 16 Sub-Clause
2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”). He has
submitted that Rule 16 provides that the disciplinary authority
shall frame definite charges on the basis of allegations whereas in
the charge-sheet in question the charges as framed are totally
vague and not definite.
(2 of 3)
[CW-909/2019]
Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
submitted that the charges as framed are specific, clear and
definite indicating type of misconduct committed by the petitioner.
I have gone through the charge-sheet as placed on record.
The charges as framed are as under:
“1-
;g gS fd vki }kjk vius inh; “kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs
gq, xaHkhj izd`fr ds vijk/kksa esa cjkenxh LFky ifjofrZr djus]
viuh vuqfpr LokFkZijrk dh iwfrZ gsrq izdj.k esa tkucw> dj
dfe;ka j[kus] j[kh xbZ dfe;ksa dh ,ot esa vijkf/k;ksa ls lkaB&xkaB
dj izdj.k dks detksj cukus ds fy, nykyksa ls lkSnsckth
djus ,oa vius v/khuLFk eqyktekuksa dks vuqfpr dk;Z djus ds fy,
tcju ck/; dj dkuwuh izko/kkuksa dks njfdukj djrs gq,
mPpkf/kdkjhx.k dks Hkzfer fd;k gSA
2-
;g gS fd vki }kjk fdlh efgyk ij vuqfpr ncko cukdj
mlds lkFk voS/k lEcU/k LFkkfir djus dh ekax djus ij Hkz’Vkpkj
fujks/kd C;wjks] tks/kiqj }kjk Vªsi dk;Zokgh dj vkidks fxj¶rkj djus
dh [kcjsa jk’Vªh; Lrjh; lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf”kr gqbZ] ftlls vke
turk esa iqfyl dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ gSaA”
Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:
“The disciplinary Authority shall frame definite
charges on the basis of the allegations on which
the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges
together with a statement of the allegations on
which they are based, shall be communicated in
writing to the Government servant, and he shall be
required to submit, within such time as may be
specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written
statement indicating whether he admits the truth
of all or any of the charges, what explanation or
defence, if any, he has to offer and whether he
desires to be heard in person:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to
frame any additional charge when it is proposed to
take action in respect of any statement or
allegation made by the person charged in the
course of his defence.”
A perusal of the charge-sheet makes it clear that the charges
as framed are neither specific nor clear. The charges do not speak
of any definite instance or any specific act of misconduct against
the petitioner. A perusal of Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 makes
(3 of 3)
[CW-909/2019]
it clear that the charges have to be mandatorily definite on basis
of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held.
As observed above, the charges as framed cannot be held to
be definite and specific. In view of the same the charge-sheet
dated 12.06.2018 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
However, the respondents would be at liberty
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
