Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 272 (RAJ)

Dust Daman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-17

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure-1), 18.11.2004 (Annexure-3) and 24.3.2005 (Annexure-5). 2. Petitioner was selected in Rajasthan Police Service in the year 1991 and joined his services in 1994. At the time when the writ petition was filed, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tonk. When the petitioner was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police (C.O.), Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara from 16.7.2003 to 25.2.2004, certain complaints against him were made with regard to investigation in FIR No.270/2003 registered with Police Station Mandalgarh against the then SHO Police Station, Mandalgarh-Shri Narsi Lal Meena. He was issued charge sheet under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Subsequently, a joint enquiry under Rule 16 and 18 was proposed against the petitioner and Shri Narsi Lal Meena and ultimately Narsi Lal Meena and petitioner were served with charge-sheet. The charges against the petitioner were of supervisory negligence and the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 20.5.2005 held the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence and imposed a penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid order of penalty was challenged by the petitioner in appeal as has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. The appellate authority by order dated 8.2.2007 quashed the order of penalty. However, the effect of aforesaid order of penalty and disciplinary proceeding was reflected in his ACR Part-III & IV of the year 2003-04 conveyed to him by the competent authority. Reference therein has been made initially to proceedings in connection with FIR No.270/03, P.S. Mandalgarh under the NDPS Act and accordingly the overall assessment has been indicated as unsatisfactory. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Government, which has been partly accepted in so far as entry with regard to proposed disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in connection with FIR No.270/2003, Police Station Mandalgarh under NDPS Act indicated in the APAR was concerned and the adverse entry was removed to that extent, but the overall assessment-unsatisfactory was not improved. Learned counsel submitted that the only reason why his overall assessment was rated as unsatisfactory was the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have not pointed out any other reason or adversity. Learned counsel submitted that the only reason why his overall assessment was rated as unsatisfactory was the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have not pointed out any other reason or adversity. Petitioner was not issued any advisory or memo except aforesaid disciplinary proceeding during the aforesaid relevant period. Learned counsel has submitted that this Court in Hetram Dudi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1992 (3) WLC (Raj) 726 while dealing with the issue as to whether punishment imposed on an employee can be the sole basis for declaring same or treating him unsuitable or unfit for promotion has held that the competent authority is bound to objectively consider the entire service record. It is argued that Part-III in which the aforesaid adverse entry was recorded is filled in by the Reviewing Authority. While the Reporting Authority has not indicated any adversity against the petitioner and to his understanding has rated his performance as good and very good, but the Reviewing Authority in Part-III has on the basis of the disciplinary enquiry rated his performance as unsatisfactory. Petitioner should have been apprised of the reasons for doing so. The down rating of APRS in this manner is contrary as per the ratio of judgement of the Supreme Court in UP Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1661 and State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 7 . 4. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, learned Additional Government Counsel did not dispute the fact of quashment of the order of penalty dated 20.5.2015 by the appellate authority by order dated 8.2.2007. In fact, this plea has been taken by the respondent in para 4 of their reply. However, the only adversity remains was regarding disciplinary proceedings. It is thus clear that the basis on which the Reviewing Authority has made the overall assessment of the petitioner by rating him unsatisfactory was aforesaid disciplinary proceeding, which proceeding has culminated in exoneration of the petitioner. 5. This Court taking note of the aforesaid facts especially what is pleaded in para 13 has directed by order dated 12.2.2007 that the aforesaid adverse entries recorded in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2003-2004 shall not be taken into account while considering the candidature of the petitioner for senior scale of RPS. 5. This Court taking note of the aforesaid facts especially what is pleaded in para 13 has directed by order dated 12.2.2007 that the aforesaid adverse entries recorded in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 2003-2004 shall not be taken into account while considering the candidature of the petitioner for senior scale of RPS. Consequently, petitioner was not only given senior scale, but subsequently as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been promoted as IPS. Since there is no other basis shown to this Court or otherwise brought on record in the pleadings by the respondents in the written reply, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. The impugned orders dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure-1), 18.11.2004 (Annexure-3) and 24.3.2005 (Annexure-5) are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. 6. The writ petition is allowed.