Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 271 (RAJ)

Narain Lal Sain v. State of Rajasthan

1998-02-23

B.S.CHAUHAN

body1998
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition has been filed for claiming the benefit of revised pay scale under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 22.1.1980. However, his services were terminated on 26.7.1982. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of that order the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1440/1982 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27.7.1983 contained in Annexure 1 to this writ petition. While allowing the writ petition, the respondents were given liberty to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and pass appropriate order accordingly. 3. Subsequent to that judgment and order of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 12.9.1983. However, he was put under suspension vide order dated 17.9.1983 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that he obtained the employment on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate. Vide order dated 18.12.1985 the suspension order was revoked and the petitioner was again reinstated. The grievance of the petitioner is that till today the respondents have not passed any appropriate order though the enquiry has been concluded, nor the trial has been concluded and the petitioner is getting the pay scale which he was getting prior to his suspension and he has been deprived of the benefit of annual grade increments nor he has been granted the fixation benefits. 4. Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the enquiry has been concluded against the petitioner, however, final order has not been passed because of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Once the petitioner has filed the reply to the Memo of Charges in the disciplinary proceedings and disclosed his defence, there can be no bar to pass an appropriate order, even if it is a punishment order, during the pendency of the criminal trial for the reason that it will not prejudice the criminal case against the petitioner as the standard of proof being entirely different in a disciplinary proceeding from that in the criminal case. In a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, however, in the disciplinary proceedings it can be based on probability and preponderance. In a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, however, in the disciplinary proceedings it can be based on probability and preponderance. Thus, the Court fails to understand why appropriate order has not been passed by the Competent Authority so far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned.In Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806 , the Apex Court observed as under (at p. 807 of AIR):- "It is true that very often employer stays the enquiries pending the decision of the trial Court and that is fair but we cannot say that principle of natural justice requires that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial before taking action against an employee..... We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature and involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial Court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced." In the State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, 1996 (6) SCC 417 : 1996 LabIC 2750, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered several of its earlier judgments and observed as under (at p. 2753 of LabIC):- "The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is also not in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in the office indefinitely i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. It is also not in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in the office indefinitely i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we find it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above......" The same view has been taken by this court in D.R. Kalla v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (1) RLW 19 : 1998 LabIC 813. In the instant case the criminal case is pending for last sixteen years and none of the counsel at the bar is in a position to state the stage of the trial. Thus, in such a fact-situation it is desirable to direct the competent authority to pass appropriate order in the disciplinary proceedings. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 : 1991 LabIC 2045 and the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Krishna Dutt v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) RLR 346 and Kan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLW 111, wherein it has been held that increments etc. cannot be stopped unless it has been held by a specific order passed by the Competent Authority as a punishment and even the case of increments and further promotion etc. can be considered even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings by adopting the sealed-cover-envelope mode. 6. cannot be stopped unless it has been held by a specific order passed by the Competent Authority as a punishment and even the case of increments and further promotion etc. can be considered even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings by adopting the sealed-cover-envelope mode. 6. In view of the above, the Competent Authority is directed to pass an appropriate order in the disciplinary proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner before him, which petitioner is directed to submit within two weeks from today, and after passing such order, to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of annual grade increments and all other consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled, the said amount including the arrears shall be released in his favour within a period of four months thereafter.With these observations, the petition stands disposed of finally.Order accordingly.