Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 180 (HP)

RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-03-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):-Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a show cause notices was issued to the petitioner on 2.2.1994. He was called upon to explain his position regarding alleged misconduct mentioned in the said notice. He submitted reply to the same on 7.2.1994. The disciplinary authority i.e. Special Secretary (R&R) issued order, dated 15.2.1994. He administered warning to the petitioner and also ordered that the said warning may be placed on the ACR dossiers of the petitioner. However, on the basis of order dated 21.12.1994 the memorandum, dated 19.5.1995 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He submitted reply to the same on 22.5.1995. He submitted that the charges levelled against him were substantially the same as contained in show cause notice, dated 2.2.1994. He made a request to withdraw the memorandum, dated 19.5.1995. He made another representation on 20.6.1995. Director Departmental Inquiry was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The District Attorney, Vigilance Headquarters was appointed as Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the department before the Inquiry officer. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner had approached the Court. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that once the show cause notice was issued to his client on 2.2.1994, to which he had filed the reply on 7.2.1994 and office order was issued on 15.2.1994, whereby his client has been administered warning, fresh memorandum dated 19.5.1995 could not be issued. He has relied upon Instruction No.(11), issued under Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. His further contention is that once the warning had been administered to his client and placed on his ACR dossiers, hence, it will amount to imposition of penalty of “Censure” and the matter could not be re-opened. He lastly contented that the order dated 15.2.1994 is a judicial decision as per Instruction No.(1) issued under Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the same could be revoked/varied only in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 3. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 2.2.1994. He filed the detailed reply to the same on 7.2.1994. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 3. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 2.2.1994. He filed the detailed reply to the same on 7.2.1994. The disciplinary authority has passed the order on 15.2.1994. The operative portion of the same reads thus:- “Therefore in view of the above circumstances and especially keeping in mind the previous record of the entire service of Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, which he had rendered in this department so far I take a lenient view, warn him to be more cautious and careful in future with regard to his duties and responsibilities as assigned to a public servant. The copy of the above warning may be placed on the ACR dossiers of the said Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Assiatant (S).” 4. It is evident from the language employed in Instruction No.(11) issued under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965 that warning administered to the petitioner was directed to be placed on his ACR dossiers. It will amount to imposition of penalty of “Censure”. Since the penalty was already imposed upon the petitioner, the matter could not be re-opened. The charges levelled against the petitioner in Annexure A-1 and A-4 are substantially the same. The order passed on 15.2.1994 was a judicial decision as per Instruction No.(1) issued under Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It could not be varied by the successor-in-office. The decision taken by the disciplinary authority being judicial decision and once is arrived, is final. In the present case, the decision has been taken by successor-in-office. This was not permissible under the law. The decision can be varied/reversed or modified only under Rules 23 and 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made above, the petition is allowed, Annexure A-4, dated 19.5.1995 is quashed and set aside. No Costs.