Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 903 (RAJ)

Shaheda Begum v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-04

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the wife of late Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, who was working as Patwari in the Revenue Department, challenging the order dated 22.06.2006 imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect and order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by husband of the petitioner was dismissed. The husband of the petitioner died on 22.09.2014. The review petition filed by husband of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Governor vide order dated 11.12.2014. The petitioner after death of her husband filed a further review petition before the Governor and requested that the penalty order imposed against her husband may be quashed and set aside and same is said to be still pending. 2. The brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was issued memorandum along with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 on 13.12.2005 wherein two charges were levelled against him. Charge No. 1:- 3. The allegation was in respect of opening mutation No. 2265 dated 11.03.2003 and mutation No. 2258 dated 24.12.2002 in favour of Khatedar Pappu S/o Badri Yadav and Mohan S/o Mangya Yadav, residents of Mandawar. The said persons on the basis of mutation got the loan sanctioned and details which were furnished by the husband of the petitioner was absolutely based on wrong facts and it was found that due to false report prepared by husband of the petitioner, ignoring mandatory procedure, he had committed serious misconduct. Charge No. 2:- 4. The allegation was in respect of giving a wrong report while preparing Jamabandi by certifying that the land in question bearing Khasra No. 56 and 57 were free from all encumbrances from Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. Tonk. The Khatedar on the basis of such note showing their land to be free from encumbrances, got loan from Arawali Kshetriya Bank, Sohela and as such the husband of the petitioner while giving such report, committed serious misconduct. 5. The husband of the petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet submitted his reply and stated that he was heart-patient since 2000 and the entries which were mentioned by him while opening the mutation, had been inadvertently made. 5. The husband of the petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet submitted his reply and stated that he was heart-patient since 2000 and the entries which were mentioned by him while opening the mutation, had been inadvertently made. The husband of the petitioner further stated that by such entries, there was no loss caused to the Government and requested to drop the proceedings initiated against him. Although the petitioner has not submitted the contents of reply in the writ petition, however, the Disciplinary Authority has also produced the contents of the reply filed by husband of the petitioner which, finds place in the impugned penalty order as under:- ^^vkjksih iVokjh us vius tokc esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k gS fd og o"kZ 2000 ls gkVZ&is'kaV gS rFkk CyMÁs'kj dk LFkk;h ejht gSa tgk¡ rd esjh tkudkjh esa gS vkjksih lEcfU/kr vof/k esa ÁkFkhZ dh rfc;r lgh ugha Fkh rFkk lgou ls ukekUrjdj.k uEcj xyr fy[kus esa vk x;s] ijUrq vc tks ukekUrjdj.k Hkjs x;s gSa og lgh gSa blesa jkT; ljdkj dk dksbZ uqdlku ugha gqvk gSaA vr% lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj djrs gq;s ÁkFkhZ ds fo:} dh x;h dk;Zokgh blh Lrj ij Mªki Qjekus ds vkns'k Ánku djsaA** 6. The District Collector after receipt of reply of husband of the petitioner, considered the entire record including reply, documents etc. and he found that husband of the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him and as such, imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated 22.06.2006. The District Collector further observed that if the delinquent employee was a heart patient and suffering from high blood pressure, he could apply for compulsory retirement by submitting appropriate application. 7. The husband of the petitioner after passing the penalty order, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and narrated the same facts before the Appellate Authority regarding his illness and he had taken a plea that he was taking the medicines and he was under mental tension to discharge his duties and as such if he had committed any inadvertent mistake, the same could be treated as a misconduct. The husband of the petitioner further reiterated his stand that by making/opening such mutations in favour of Khatedar, neither the State nor the Bank suffered any financial loss. The husband of the petitioner further reiterated his stand that by making/opening such mutations in favour of Khatedar, neither the State nor the Bank suffered any financial loss. The husband of the petitioner further stated that he had no ill motive to prepare such report and it was only a human mistake and requested the District Collector, Alwar to forgive him for committing inadvertent mistake. 8. The Appellate Authority looked into the entire record and also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had opened the mutation and put a note with regard to land being free from all encumbrances and accordingly the khatedar concerned, got the loan sanctioned from different banks. The Appellate Authority also noted that although the petitioner had taken a plea of his illness but he had not filed any document before the District Collector to prove such fact of his illness by showing him to be under mental pressure. The Appellate Authority further discussed, in detail, the stand taken by the husband of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the appeal was liable to be rejected and it confirmed the order passed by the District Collector imposing the penalty. 9. The husband of the petitioner feeling aggrieved against both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, filed review petition before the Governor under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1958. The Reviewing Authority after calling the comments from the Administrative Department considered the fact that the husband of the petitioner had committed gross misconduct in manipulating the revenue records and these irregularities have been committed due to mental imbalance, could not be accepted as an inadvertent error. The Reviewing Authority found that the charge was proved against the husband of the petitioner and he was accordingly punished by the Disciplinary Authority. 10. The petitioner after death of her husband further filed a review petition before the Governor and she has requested that her husband was seriously ill before his death and he was not in fit state of mind to discharge his job and if any human error had taken place, the same was required to be condoned. The review petition filed on 05.01.2015 is said to be not decided till date. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders has approached this Court challenging the validity of impugned orders. Mr. The review petition filed on 05.01.2015 is said to be not decided till date. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders has approached this Court challenging the validity of impugned orders. Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has committed a gross illegality in giving a finding of guilt being proved against the husband of the petitioner without making any enquiry as per the requirement of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Learned counsel submitted that even if the husband of the petitioner had admitted the guilt coupled with the fact of mental illness, the authority was bound to appoint an enquiry officer and only after charge being proved in the regular departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority could have proceeded to pass the order. 11. Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the state of mind of husband of the petitioner due to his illness was affected in such a manner where he could not understand that the admission of his guilt which he made before Disciplinary Authority would prejudice his case. Learned counsel submitted that even if there was admission on the part of the husband of the petitioner, the mandatory requirement of appointing the enquiry officer has not been followed. 12. Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner is a widow and she would suffer for the alleged misconduct committed due to inadvertent mistake of her husband by imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect and post retiral benefits would make a lot of difference in getting pension. 13. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that the husband of the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16(2) of CCA Rules, 1958 and after receipt of the charge-sheet, the husband of the petitioner was to submit his written statement of defence and as per requirement of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, the Disciplinary Authority is required to enquire into such of the charges which are not admitted by the delinquent and the Disciplinary Authority may himself conduct the enquiry or can appoint the Enquiry Board or Enquiring Authority for enquiring into the charges. The Disciplinary Authority if finds that the charges are admitted, he will proceed further to record his findings on the charge and will pass the necessary orders. The Relevant sub-Rule (2), (4), (4A) of the Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 are quoted hereunder:- "(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement indicating whether he admits the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence, if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person: Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame any additional charge when it is proposed to take action in respect of any statement of allegation made by the person charged in the course of his defence. Explanation - In this sub-rule and in sub-rule (3) the expression the Disciplinary Authority, shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government Servant any of the penalties, specified in clause (i) to (iii) of Rule 14. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself enquire into such of the charges, as are not admitted or if, it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and whether all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge. (4A) If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in the written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence appears before the Inquiring Authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon. The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilty in respect of those articles of charge which the Government servant pleads guilty." 15. The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilty in respect of those articles of charge which the Government servant pleads guilty." 15. The bare perusal of the rules makes it clear that when the delinquent employee had admitted the charges, there was no necessity to appoint an enquiry officer/authority and the Disciplinary Authority has to consider the record of the enquiry and has to pass the order. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in every case after receipt of reply the enquiry officer is to be appointed merits no acceptance. The delinquent, if has been granted an opportunity to file written statement of his defence as per Rule 16(4), he has every right to refute the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound to proceed further in the matter by appointing Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Authority. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was not in fit state of mind at the time of filing reply to the charges levelled against him, suffice it to say that reply which has been reproduced in the penalty order shows that husband of the petitioner had specifically pleaded that since he was a heart patient and having high blood pressure, the mistake inadvertently might have been committed by him. The husband of the petitioner next contended that by making such entries in the mutation, he had not caused any loss to the Government nor he caused loss to the bank which had granted the loan. This Court finds that such kind of stand taken by the husband of the petitioner clearly amounts to admission of the guilt and the Disciplinary Authority was absolutely within its domain to pass the order. 17. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the delinquent i.e. petitioner would suffer for the times to come, suffice it to say that if the gross misconduct has been committed and the penalty has been imposed which has been further put to scrutiny before the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the findings which have been recorded by the Authority after considering all the facts. 18. The writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.