Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 276 (RAJ)

B. L. Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-02-15

B.J.SHETHNA, P.C.TATIA

body2001
Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Mr. Saluja for the appellant stated at the bar that he will be satisfied with the order of compulsory retirement instead of order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority against the appellant. (2). In view of the above, notice is ordered to be issued to the respondents. (3). Learned AAG Mr. Jangid is directed to accept notice. Mr. Saluja has supplied copy of special appeal along with writ petition to Mr. Jangid. (4). At the joint request and by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this special appeal is heard and disposed of today itself by this order. (5). The appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste of Meghwal. He was to retire from service with effect from 30.11.99. Just a day before i.e. on 29.11.99, his services were terminated by the disciplinary authority as per the order at Annex. 13. The same was challenged by the appellant before this Court by way of writ petition No. 3962/2000 which was dismissed in limini at the admission stage itself by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this special appeal. (6). Earlier, the appellant was placed under suspension during the departmental proceedings initiated against him for different mis-conduct. During that period of suspension, he remained absent from headquarter without obtaining prior permission from the authority and without prior permission of the State Government, he worked on television as newsreader from 9.9.88 to 12.5.89 and from 13.5.89 to 5.6.92 from Delhi and Ahmedabad T.V. Relay Centres. For these two charges, he was charge-sheeted on 29.8.93. He submitted his explanation by reply dated 5.11.93 but the same was not found plausible, therefore, the authority decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against him and accordingly appointed the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer found both the aforesaid charges proved. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the appellant and after considering his reply to the show cause notice, the authority with the consultation of RPSC passed an order of dismissal from service. (7). Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel Mr. Saluja was unable to point out any irregularity committed during the domestic enquiry, therefore, on merits, the learned Single Judge found nothing wrong with the order of punishment. The only submission which was pressed into service before the learned Single Judge was regarding punishment. (7). Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel Mr. Saluja was unable to point out any irregularity committed during the domestic enquiry, therefore, on merits, the learned Single Judge found nothing wrong with the order of punishment. The only submission which was pressed into service before the learned Single Judge was regarding punishment. According to him, the extreme penalty of dismissal was not called for in the instant case looking to the mis-conduct which is found to be proved against him. He submitted that the extreme penalty of dismissal at the fag end of his service was highly disproportionate, therefore, he submitted before the learned Single Judge to interfere with that punishment. But unfortunately the learned Single Judge did not accept his submission and rejected the petition on that ground also. (8). We have carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.11.2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. For not accepting the contention regarding punishment, he has referred to several judgments of Honble Supreme Court. There cannot be any quarrel with the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court namely that ordinarily the High Court and Tribunals should not interfere with the punishment unless and until it is found that it is highly disproportionate to the mis-conduct committed by the delinquent. Thus, in our considered opinion, each case has to be decided on its own facts. (9). Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that while remaining under suspension, he has worked as newsreader on television. However, from the record of the case, it is clear that he did apply for permission from the State Government but the same was not at all replied. We do not say even for a moment that it would entitle him to work as a television newsreader but certainly these circumstances should not have been ignored by the learned Single Judge while considering the question of imposing of maximum penalty by the disciplinary authority. Apart from this, the learned Single Judge has not at all considered the most important aspect of the case that after several years of service, when he was about to retire from service on 30.11.99, just a day before, his services were terminated on 29.11.99. Apart from this, the learned Single Judge has not at all considered the most important aspect of the case that after several years of service, when he was about to retire from service on 30.11.99, just a day before, his services were terminated on 29.11.99. If at all his services were not required by the department on the aforesaid ground, then on the peculiar facts of this case, they could have easily passed the order of compulsory retirement. Under the circumstances, the submission made by Mr. Saluja to substitute the order of dismissal into the order of compulsory retirement is required to be accepted. (10). Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned AAG Mr. Jangid was not in a position to defend the order of extreme penalty of dismissal from service. (11). Before parting, we must state that while passing the order of punishment, the authorities are required to consider, (1) long standing of service, (2) person coming from a particular strata of society, (3) gravity of mis-conduct, (4) under what circumstances, mis-conduct was committed, etc. (12). Taking into the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that in the instant case, the extreme penalty from dismissal of service was not called for. In ordinary circumstances, we would have referred the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing the suitable order of compulsory retirement. But, the fact that the petitioner has already been superannuated on 30.11.99, therefore, it will be an exercise in futility to refer the matter to the authority. (13). Under the circumstances, instead of remanding the matter to the authority to suitably modify the order of dismissal into the order of compulsory retirement, we hereby while confirming the order of disciplinary authority on merits, quash and set aside the order of dismissal and substitute the same by way of compulsory retirement. (14). To the aforesaid extent, this special appeal is partly allowed. (15). A copy of this order be given to both the learned counsel for the parties for its implementation as early as possible.