In re Ramswarup v. . — 1966 DIGILAW 112 (RAJ)

The Collector does not appear to have applied his mind to the report received from the Enquiring Officer in as much as he had not recorded a finding based on reasons on the various charges stated to have been proved against appellant by the Enquiring Authority. Nor does he appear to have applied his judicial mind after the receipt of the reply from the appellant to show cause notice served on him. This is clearly in contravention of R. 16 sub-rules (9) and (10) under which the Collector is required to record his findings on every charge. It need not be mentioned that the process of recording a finding requires analytical examination and proper weighing of the pros and cons of the evidence on record. In short, such an order should be a speaking order and unless this is so, it cannot be maintained. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector, Ajmer dated 2.9.1964, whereby he dismissed the appellant from Government service holding that the following charges had been proved against him — (i) that he had misappropriated the Government dues of land revenue and Taccavi amounting to Rs. 772.44. (ii) that he was negligent and showed dereliction in the discharge of his duties. (iii) that he lost and destroyed the government record which was in his sole possession. 1 It appears that on the basis of certain allegations, the appellant who was working as patwari of circle Narwar, Tehsil Ajmer, was placed under suspension by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer on 13.9.60. Subsequently, charges were framed against him vide Collectors order dated 21.8.1961. The allegations and the charges were duly investigated and enquired into in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and a show cause notice was given to the appellant on 27.6.1964 stating that the penalty of dismissal was proposed to be imposed upon him. Having considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the written reply to the show cause notice, the Collector held that the charges as listed above had been proved against him. As a result, therefore, he dismissed the patwari under the aforesaid order. In his grounds of appeal, the patwari has raised three pleas. His first plea is that he was over-worked as there were about 5000 khasra in his charge. As a result, therefore, he dismissed the patwari under the aforesaid order. In his grounds of appeal, the patwari has raised three pleas. His first plea is that he was over-worked as there were about 5000 khasra in his charge. His second plea is that it was the duty of the Lambardar to collect government dues and that no Lambardar had been appointed in his circle. He was, therefore, required to collect the revenue also and as there was no arrangement for keeping the money in safe custody, he used to keep the same with the Sarpanch, Lakharam, under the verbal orders of the Tehsildar. He, further, pleaded that the money was deposited by him subsequently in the Treasury. A perusal of the record shows that he had given a similar explanation in reply to the show cause notice issued by the Collector, and had pleaded that it was not his intention to misappropriate the government money. He had stated therein that the money remained undeposited in treasury because of rush of work and that he had subsequently deposited the money in the Treasury. From the laconic order recorded by the Collector, it does not appear whether he had taken the defence put up by the appellant into consideration or not. All that this order states is that no new facts were put forward by the patwari in his reply to the show cause notice which might go to change the findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of which it was provisionally decided to dismiss him. Obviously, this approach is not in accordance with the Rules U/R. 16(9). The disciplinary authority, if it is not the Enquiring Authority, is required to consider the record of the enquiry and to record its findings on each charge under sub-rule (10). If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in cls. The disciplinary authority, if it is not the Enquiring Authority, is required to consider the record of the enquiry and to record its findings on each charge under sub-rule (10). If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in cls. (iv) to (vii) of rules 14 should be imposed, it is required to furnish to the government servant a copy of the report of the Enquiring Authority and, where the disciplinary authority is not the Enquiring Authority a statement of its findings, together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enquiring Authority; and to give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken as required under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. A perusal of the notice issued in this case on 27 6-64 shows that this statutory provision of law has not been fulfilled by the Collector. The notice does not carry with it a statement of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of the Enquiring Authority. It merely states that an oral enquiry was held by Shri R. V. Sontake, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer, and the charges were held to have been proved as per copy of his enquiry report sent to the Patwari by the Commissioner Departmental Enquiries, and, "therefore, you are hereby informed that on consideration of the case it is considered prima facie appropriate that the penalty of dismissal should be imposed upon you." The rule clearly requires that the statement of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on each charge should accompany such a notice. A similar point arose in the case of Shri Jagdish Prasad, ex-patwari, reported as 1965 RRD 222. The learned Member who heard the appeal found that the Collector had not cared to incorporate the statement of his findings based on reasons on the various charges held proved against the appellant by the Enquiring Authority. A similar point arose in the case of Shri Jagdish Prasad, ex-patwari, reported as 1965 RRD 222. The learned Member who heard the appeal found that the Collector had not cared to incorporate the statement of his findings based on reasons on the various charges held proved against the appellant by the Enquiring Authority. The learned member came to the conclusion that this lacuna on the part of the Collector in serving the show cause notice went to the root of the case and vitiated the notice issued to the appellant as it showed that the Collector had dealt with the case in a routine manner and had not applied his mind in a judicial manner to the various charges reported to have been proved against the appellant. It was held that it was the duty cast on the Collector to go into the evidence as he was not the Enquiring Officer himself and to determine whether the charges reported to have been proved against the appellant had, in fact, been proved or not. It is required under the Rules that the Collector should consider each charge separately together with the evidence produced in support of it as well as the evidence in defence adduced by the delinquent officer. It was observed that this important duty cast on the Collector in dealing with such matter had been badly neglected and rendered the show cause notice defective. This view finds further support in Kanahiyalal vs. The State of Rajasthan (RLW 1958 Page 1). In this case the Commissioner who had given notice to the petitioner at the second stage for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him had failed to make any reference to the evidence against the petitioner. While imposing the punishment on the petitioner he had simply stated that the petitioner led no evidence in defence. Their Lordships observed that the Commissioner should have referred to the evidence against the petitioner and given his findings on its strength. While imposing the punishment on the petitioner he had simply stated that the petitioner led no evidence in defence. Their Lordships observed that the Commissioner should have referred to the evidence against the petitioner and given his findings on its strength. They should hold that it was not enough to refer the weakness of the defence which could be very little, if any, in such case, as the Commissioner had not made any reference to the evidence produced against the petitioner, their Lordships observed in so many words that "he does not seem to have applied his mind." I find that the present case also suffers from a similar infirmity. The Collector does not appear to have applied his mind to the report received from the Enquiring Officer in as much as he had not recorded a finding based on reasons on the various charges stated to have been proved against the appellant by the Enquiring Authority. Nor does he appear to have applied his judicial mind after the receipt of the reply from the appellant to the show cause notice served on him. This is clearly in contravention of R. 16 sub-rules (9) and (10) under which the Collector is required to record his findings on every charge. It need not be mentioned that the process of recording a finding requires analytical examination and proper weighing of the pros and cons of the evidence on record. In short, such an order should be a speaking order and unless this is so, it cannot be maintained. The failure of the Collector to do so in the present case vitiates the proceedings. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the case at this stage. In the result, therefore, this appeal is hereby accepted and the order of dismissal passed by the Collector is set aside. The case is remitted to the Collector with the direction that he should now record his findings on every charge stated to have been proved against the appellant as required under sub-rule (9) and then proceed to take further action in accordance with sub-rule (10).