Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 398 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Bilas Sharma

2003-03-13

ANIL DEV SINGH, HIMMAT RAM PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in SBCW Petition No. 2248/1991 decided on 16th April, 2002. 2. The respondent was a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department. While working as Junior Engineer a charge sheet was issued to him. The statement of allegations reads as follows: "That the said Shri R.B. sharma while working Sub-Engineer in the Dattor Branch Division-I of the Rajasthan Canal Project prepared false Muster Rolls No. 406 of Rs. 4482/-, No. 407 of Rs. 4518/-, No. 419 of Rs. 5376 and No. 420 of Rs. 9408 and thus caused a loss of Rs.23,, 84/- to the Government. Following serious irregularities were observed: 1. Muster Rolls do not appear to have been marked from day to day. 2. Daily labour reports also do not appear to have been prepared from day to day. 3. Most of the thumb impressions are unidentifiable. 4. Thumb impressions look like finger impressions. 5. Under part I of the Muster Rolls the details of the material used are not given. Loop-holes for misappropriation of cement are thus left. 6. Enquiries made indicate that the Muster Rolls are more or less wholly false." Enquiry was held, in which evidence was recorded and an opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. He was also allowed to lead his evidence. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, exonerated the appellant. However, the Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment of stoppage of 5 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary Authority, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 16th April, 2002 found that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings was not transmitted to the respondent and no opportunity of hearing was given to him to support the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. 3. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that since the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the respondent pertained to the year 1983 and 19 years had gone by, therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration of the matter, after complying with the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances which appealed to the learned Single Judge, the petition of the respondent was allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 21st September, 1988 passed by the appellant Disciplinary Authority was set aside. 4. It was further directed that the proceedings taken against the respondent would come to an end and there would be no need to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of fresh penalty after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The State, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that while the State does not challenge the fact that the Disciplinary Authority passed the order imposing punishment on the respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice, at the same time there was no justification for the learned Single judge for not allowing the Disciplinary Authority to consider and determine the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the appellant in the year 1983 and they continued for a long period of 19 years. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Sharma, (1998) 7 SCC, 84 , he submitted that the matter ought not to be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority, more so when the respondent has already superannuated. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in case the matter is not remitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent, without admitting his liability, shall deposit a sum of Rs.23,784/-, the amount which was the subject matter of the charge. He also stated that the respondent will forgo his right to be considered for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to higher posts. He also stated that the respondent will forgo his right to be considered for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to higher posts. He, however, clarified that the respondent would insist for the increments, which an employee is entitled to, when he is appointed in a grade. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. We are of the view that the matter ought not be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority in view of the fact that the Disciplinary proceedings were started in the year 1983 and were concluded in the year 1988 and the proceedings before this Court for quashing of the order of the Disciplinary Authority took another 10 years to reach the stage of appeal. The respondent, in the meantime, has also retired from service. Besides, he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.23,784/- with the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that he does not admit his liability. The respondent also is forgoing promotions to higher posts. 10. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the.matter is not remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority. We order accordingly and uphold the order of the learned Single Judge. It will be open to the appellant to deduct the amount of Rs.23,784/- from the arrears which may have to be paid to the respondent. The arrears which are required to be paid to the respondent shall be paid within a period of six months. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the statements which he has made before us, have been made on the instructions of the respondent who s present in the Court. The statements made by the learned coup 10 for the respondents are hereby recorded and shall be binding on respondent. 12. the circumstances, therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 13. This order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances.Appeal Disposed as Above. *******