Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2090 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-08

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner, a Constable in Rajasthan Police, was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1958) alongwith a statement of allegations. The petitioner was alleged for remaining unauthorized absent from duty. The petitioner denied the allegations and, therefore, an inquiry as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was ordered to be conducted by appointing an Inquiry Officer. 2. The Inquiry Officer after holding regular inquiry submitted its report to the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty for all the allegations leveled against him. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report and other record of the inquiry imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner under the order impugned dated 30.01.1988. It appears from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner remained absent from the duties for a period of ten days due to illness of his sister, and thereafter, for a period of fifteen days due to her death. Besides that the petitioner also remained absent from duties on 04.01.1987, 06.01.1987, 22.01.1987, 07.02.1987, 12.03.1987, 10.04.1987 and 22.04.1987. The disciplinary authority on basis of absence of the petitioner on the dates above held the petitioner guilty for willful absence and also for carelessness. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.1988 preferred an appeal before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur which also came to be rejected by an order dated 27.02.1989. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority this petition for writ is preferred by the petitioner. 4. Heard Counsel for the parties. 5. A challenge to the aforesaid two impugned orders is given by the petitioner on the count that both the orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as much as, both the orders are non-speaking and unreasoned orders. It is also contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the order Annexure-3 passed by the appellate authority is not in accordance with the Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. It is also contended that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency for which the petitioner was found guilty. 6. It is also contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the order Annexure-3 passed by the appellate authority is not in accordance with the Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. It is also contended that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency for which the petitioner was found guilty. 6. Per Contra Counsel for the respondents stated that the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and sufficient opportunity was given to him to defend himself . The petitioner utterly failed to prove any prejudice caused to him due to non adherence of any of the provision of the Rules of 1958. It is further contended by Counsel for the respondents that the appellate authority considered the appeal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, no interference is required to be made by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction as prayed by the petitioner. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties. 8. The order passed by the appellate authority is apparently in violation of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes procedure for considering an appeal. In the instant case the appellate authority in its order at the first instance has reproduced the allegations leveled against the petitioner and thereafter he reproduced the memo of appeal submitted by the petitioner. The appellate authority without considering the contentions raised by the delinquent employee and without considering the appeal in accordance with the Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 rejected the appeal by maintaining the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the appellate authority, therefore, is certainly in violation of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 9. With regard to the order of disciplinary authority the main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of compulsory retirement for the allegation of absence from duty for a period of about seven days in too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency. 9. With regard to the order of disciplinary authority the main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of compulsory retirement for the allegation of absence from duty for a period of about seven days in too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the disciplinary authority considered and accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner with regard to remaining absent from duties due to illness of his sister and due to her death. However, by considering the absence of the petitioner on 04.01.1987, 06.01.1987, 22.01.1987, 07.02.1987, 12.03.1987, 10.04.1987, and 22.04.1987 as willful absence punished the petitioner with compulsory retirement. 10. It is true that absence without permission is misconduct and the same is not required to be taken lightly. However, at the same time the disciplinary authority should also consider the fact that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes various punishments including the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. The punishment of dismissal from service, removal and compulsory retirement are too severe punishments and these punishments should not be imposed upon a civil servant in normal course. These are the punishments wherein a person loses the employment, that is the source of livelihood, therefore such server punishments should be imposed with all caution and in exceptional cases where the retention of the servant in public employment is against the interest of the employer and also against the interest of the society and in the cases where no chances are feasible for improvement in the working of such servant. 11. The petitioner who was in employment of the respondents for a number of years should have been subjected to some other punishment than the severe punishment of compulsory retirement. In my considered opinion in the present set of circumstances the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner for remaining willfully absent from duties for few days in highly disproportionate to the delinquency. In view of it the order dated 30.01.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority also deserves to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.01.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. In view of it the order dated 30.01.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority also deserves to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.01.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the services with all consequential benefits, however, it shall be open for the disciplinary authority to impose some other punishment than the punishment of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal after reconsidering the record of the inquiry. No order as to cost.