HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12309/2020

Nand Kishore Sharma S/o Late Vishwanath Tripathi, Aged About

59 Years, (D.o.b. 01.03.1961), Resident Of Mahawat Nagar,

Nearby Kaila Colony, Bhamtipura Dholpur, District Dholpur,

Rajasthan (Presently Holding The Post Of Sheristedar Grade-I,

And Working As Acting Reader In The Court Of Civil Judge Cum

Judicial Magistrate, Bari, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.)

----Petitioner

Versus

District And Session Judge, Dholpur Cum Disciplinary Authority,

Office At District Court Campus, Railway Station Road, District

Dholpur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

22/01/2021

1.

The petitioner assails the order passed by the learned

District & Sessions Judge, Dholpur cum Disciplinary Authority who

has punished the petitioner on a charge-sheet issued to him

under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,

Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as

‘Rules of 1958’) by stopping his one grade increment without

cumulative effect.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

punishment of stopping one grade increment without cumulative

effect is a major penalty as the period has not been prescribed in

the punishment order. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner

(2 of 4)

[CW-12309/2020]

submits that as per Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules any

order withholding an increment shall state the period for which it

is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of

postponing future increments. Since the order did not mention the

period, it would be amounting to major penalty and also contrary

to the Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

3.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has also

challenged the decision of the learned District & Sessions judge,

Dholpur in not forwarding the representation made by the

petitioner and submits that the learned District & Sessions Judge

had no power to look into the representation addressed to the

Rajasthan High Court at his level and he ought to have sent it

without looking into the contents of the representation.

4.

I have considered the submissions.

5.

The punishment of stopping of one grade increment

without cumulative effect has been held to be a minor penalty as

per the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in State of

Rajasthan Versus M.C. Saxena reported in (1998) 3 SCC

385. As per the Rules of 1958, Rule 14 prescribes the various

punishments which can be awarded to an individual delinquent

who is found to have committed delinquency as per Rule 16 or

Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Withholding of increment is one

of the nature of the penalty prescribed under Rule 14(ii), it

nowhere provides that while passing the penalty number of years

be also mentioned.

6.

However, the argument taken by the petitioner at the

face of it may seem to be attractive in terms of Rule 29 the

Rajasthan Services Rules but same deserves to be rejected as in

terms of the Rajasthan Service Rules gross increment for each

(3 of 4)

[CW-12309/2020]

year of service if one grade increment has been withheld without

cumulative effect, then the same shall be only for one year. There

is no requirement to mention that one grade increment is stopped

for one year as there cannot be two grade increments in one year.

Similarly, if any person is punished for two grade increments

without cumulative effect, the same shall be for two years and so

on and so forth. The import of Rule 29 for directing withholding of

increment by mentioning of period is in relation to cases where

punishment of major penalty is awarded namely withholding of

increment with cumulative effect. Thus, if a one grade increment

is withheld with cumulative effect for one year or two years or

th