Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 67 (RAJ)

Satya Narain Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2003-01-17

ANIL DEV SINGH, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal Is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 297/2002 dated January 24, 2002. The appellant while working in the Revenue Department as Patwari and Land Revenue Inspector entered mutation in favour of one Badri Lal on the basis of a will In respect of 5 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land without holding any inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority on 23.1.2001 gave a written warning to the appellant by way of punishment. The Revisional Authority was not satisfied with the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant. Accordingly, the Revisional Authority after issuing a notice to the appellant for the purpose of providing him with an opportunity of hearing in respect of proposed revision of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, enhanced the punishment imposed on him by directing with-holding of his two annual graded increments with cumulative effect. 2. The appellant being aggrieved of the order passed by the Revisional Authority filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 297/2002. The writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding to the effect that the punishment imposed on the appellant by the Revisional Authority was proper and writ court normally does not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the authority enhancing the penalty of the delinquent employee. The appellant not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge has filed the instant special appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Revisional Authority initiated proceedings for enhancement after a period of six months from the date of imposition of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It Is not In dispute that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order imposing the punishment on 23.1.2001 and the Revisional Authority on 4.9.2001 had given a notice for revising its order. It is significant to note that the notice did not state that hearing fixed on 4.9.2001 was being provided for enhancing the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Besides, as per Rule 32(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, no action is to be initiated more than six months after the date of passing of the order to be revised. Besides, as per Rule 32(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, no action is to be initiated more than six months after the date of passing of the order to be revised. Admittedly, the action by the Revisional Authority was initiated more than six months after the order imposing punishment on the appellant was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. This was a clear flaw in the order of the Revisional Authority. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Revisional Authority enhancing the punishment was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside as also the order of Revisional Authority. The appeal is allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed - orders of single judge and of revisional authority set aside. *******