Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2222 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-11-22

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The petitioner, a Head Constable with the Rajasthan Police at Reserved Police Line, Hanumangarh, was subjected to a disciplinary action under a memorandum dated 27.07.20007 issued by the disciplinary authority as per the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958"). The disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner passed an order dated 17.08.2007 imposing a penalty of censure upon him. The Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, who happens to be the appellate authority, while exercising powers under the proviso to Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, vide a notice dated 11.09.2007, sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why the penalty imposed be not enhanced. A reply to the same was given by the delinquent employee with assertion that as a matter of fact, no misconduct was committed by him, as such even the penalty imposed deserves to be quashed. The appellate authority vide order dated 03.04.2008 while affirming the finding given by the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Suffice to mention that the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order imposing penalty. Being aggrieved by the order enhancing the penalty and the order rejecting appeal, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. At the threshold, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not. want to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority and as such he confines his argument to the extent of challenge given to the order passed by the appellate authority exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules 1958. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority while exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 is required to provide adequate reasons for enhancing the penalty, but in the instant matter, enhancement of penalty is not substantiated by sufficient reasons. 3. While meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, there is no requirement to provide reasons for enhancing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. 3. While meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, there is no requirement to provide reasons for enhancing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. In alternative, it is also submitted that the order Annex.4 dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Inspector-General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner contains sufficient reasons for enhancement of the penalty. It is submitted that the petitioner was found guilty for a serious misconduct and therefore, the minimum punishment was not commensurating to his delinqu-ency, thus, the appellate authority awarded a suitable penalty to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 empowers the appellate authority to confirm, modify or set aside the order of penalty and further to impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority suo moto or otherwise. While invoking powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, the appellate authority is required to call for and examine the record of the case, wherein the subordinate authority has passed the order. The phrase "call for and examine the record of the case" clearly indicates that the appellate authority while exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 is required to consider the entire record of the case objectively and then to arrive at a definite conclusion to set aside, modify, confirm, reduce or enhance the penalty. An objective conclusion can be achieved only by objective consideration. Such conclusion should have sufficient reasons in its support. The order passed by the appellate authority, thus is required to be a reasoned order. It is also relevant to note that the appellate authority is having appellate powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1958, wherein the order passed by it is required to be a speaking and reasoned one by making necessary consideration as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. It is also relevant to note that the appellate authority is having appellate powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1958, wherein the order passed by it is required to be a speaking and reasoned one by making necessary consideration as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The appellate authority under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, as a matter of fact, exercises appellate powers suo moto or otherwise, as such these powers are akin to the powers available to the appellate authority under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, therefore, an order as per Rule 32 of the Rules of 1 958 should also contain reasons after due consideration as per Rule 30. 6. In the instant matter, from examination of the order impugned, it is apparent that the appellate authority examined the facts of the case only to the extent of holding the petitioner guilty for misconduct. No consideration is made as to how the punishment of censure is not commensurating to the delinquency established and the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment is sufficient to meet the delinquency of the petitioner. In the absence of such reasons. I am having no hesitation in holding the order impugned bad. 7. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1 958 is quashed. No order as to costs.