Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1236 (RAJ)

Himmat Mal Dangi v. State of Raj.

2005-04-27

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2004 dismissing the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant entered the services of the Treasury and Accounts Department being appointed on the post of Junior Accountant in the year 1991. Thus, he is governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules. By the order of the Director, Treasury and Accounts he was posted as Junior Accountant in the Office of Tehsildar, Bali in the year 1992. He was served with a memorandum dated 08.05.2002 issued by the Chairman, Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer alleging therein that while holding the post of Junior Accountant in the office of Tehsildar, Bali, one Shri Radha Kishan Sen, LDC embezzled Government money to the tune of Rs. 1,60,128.50. It was further alleged that the appellant did not check the accounts properly. Thus, a sum of Rs. 643/-was embezzled by Shri Radha Kishan. It was further alleged that the appellant failed to perform his supervisory duty properly. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bali conducted enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was not vigilant enough to locate the delinquency of Radha Kishan Sen. The Chairman, Revenue Board by order dated 211.2003 inflicted on him a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. 3. The appellant challenged the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order inflicting penalty is wholly without authority of law inasmuch as that he belongs to Department of Treasury and Accounts and was on deputation with the Revenue Department. The contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge referring to S.O. 243 of the Disciplinary and Conduct Code. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 03.09.2004. In view of the short controversy involved a notice for final disposal at the admission stage was given. 4. The learned Counsel has reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge. Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules) provides disciplinary authorities. For the convenience Rule 15 is extracted as follows:- "15. 4. The learned Counsel has reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge. Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules) provides disciplinary authorities. For the convenience Rule 15 is extracted as follows:- "15. Disciplinary Authorities:-(1) In respect of the State Services the Government or the authority specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Service, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government and in respect of Class IV Services the Head of Office shall be the disciplinary authority. Note:-(i) The authorities specially empowered to make appointment to a Service under Rule 12 of these Rules shall have power to inflict any of the penalties specified in Rule 14. (ii) The State Government or the Head of the Department as the case may be, shall not empower under this rule any other authority to impose penalties specified in Clauses (vi) and (vii) ofRule 14. (2) In respect of the State service the powers of appointment to which is not delegated to a subordinate authority, before imposing the penalties other than censure, and withholding of increments, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted." Sub-clause (1) of Rule 15 envisages that in case of subordinate and ministerial services the Head of the Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the State Government shall be the disciplinary authority. 5. In the instant case, as the appellant belongs to the Department of Treasury and Accounts, as such the Chairman, Revenue Board is not his Head of the Department. The Additional Government Advocate has placed before us S.O. 243 dated 20.10.2000 to show that the Chairman of the Board of Revenue has been empowered to act as disciplinary authority for the persons on deputation in the Revenue Department. The Additional Government Advocate has placed before us S.O. 243 dated 20.10.2000 to show that the Chairman of the Board of Revenue has been empowered to act as disciplinary authority for the persons on deputation in the Revenue Department. The Notification dated 20.10.2000 is extracted as follows:- "Government of Rajasthan Department of Personnel (A-III) No.F.(2)(16)DOP/A-III/92 Jaipur Dated 20.10.2000 Notification A supersession of all the orders issued in this behalf and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the State Government hereby empowers all the Heads of Departments to conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Rule 17 of the said rules, in respect of the State Service Officers of the lowest level or first entry level who are directly working under their control and belonging to the respective services of which they are Heads of Departments. By order, Sd/- (Dr. Gautam Mukherjee) Dy. Secretary to Govt." 6. A bare reading of the notification reveals that it pertains to State Service Officers of the lowest level. Thus, the notification dated 20.10.2000 does not advance the case of the respondents. Thus, we are of the view that the Chairman, Board of Revenue is not the disciplinary authority of a Junior Accountant belonging to Treasury and Accounts Department. It may further be stated that the said notification only empowers the Head of the Department to conduct enquiry and pass an appropriate order under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. In the instant case, the enquiry has been conducted against the appellant under Rule 16, though the punishment has been inflicted under Rule 17. Thus, the initiation of an enquiry under Rule 16 itself is without jurisdiction. The Chairman, Board of Revenue being not the disciplinary authority of the appellant belonging to Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, the impugned order of inflicting punishment is wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 7. Consequently the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2004 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 211.2003 so far as it relates to inflicting the penalty on the appellant of stoppage one grade increment without cumulative effect is concerned, is set aside.