Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2315 (RAJ)

Hari Singh Bhuria v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-28

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking quashment of orders dated 18/4/2000 and 7/7/2000 whereby their services came to an end. 2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2231/2000, was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner joined his services in 1963 whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3717/2000, was appointed as Sub-Inspector, Motor Vehicle in the year 1977 in the State of Rajasthan and was discharging the services as on the post of DTO(District Transport Officer) in the year 1984. Both the petitioners were given the charge sheet u/s. 16 of the CCA Rules vide memorandum dated 24.5.1996 and enquiry was ordered to be initiated. The charge against the petitioners were that their negligence resulted into wrong registration of Truck No. RJ-18/G-0526 without verifying chassis number, without taking further proceedings as per Form No. 21 and incomplete information in Form No. 20. Counsel for the petitioners limits their submissions to the quantum of punishment as they rendered their services for a long span of time, therefore, they should not have been terminated by the respondents. 3. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of "Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs. B.H.E.L. & Anr." reported in 2014 (2) SCC 311. The relevant paras No. 11, 16 & 17 reads as under: 11. While deciding on this issue, it is pertinent for us to ascertain the responsibility of the appellant against which he has been held negligent and also his role in the same. As per the Enquiry Report produced against him which is annexed with the appeal by the appellant, he was held negligent under Rules 5(5) and 5(9) of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "BHEL Conduct Rules") for being negligent while performing his duty and acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of his employer. The Enquiry Report reads as under: "....As in-charge of the canteen [HR-Canteen], it was incumbent responsibility of Shri G.B. Goyal to conscientious discharge on his side responsibility as the irregularities stated above amply prove has complicity beyond any shadow of doubt in the sordid state of affair present in the canteen operations. XXX XXX XXX Mr. The Enquiry Report reads as under: "....As in-charge of the canteen [HR-Canteen], it was incumbent responsibility of Shri G.B. Goyal to conscientious discharge on his side responsibility as the irregularities stated above amply prove has complicity beyond any shadow of doubt in the sordid state of affair present in the canteen operations. XXX XXX XXX Mr. G.B. Goyal has admitted the charges leveled against him as contained in the Article of charges as elaborated in Statement of Imputations of Misconduct stating that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties in the capacity of overall in-charge of canteen by placing blind reliance upon his subordinates operating in a three tier system of checking and verification 16. Since, we have answered point No. 1 in affirmative while allowing the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30883-30884 of 2012 and the dismissal order served on the appellant is quashed, the appellant becomes entitled to all the retiral and pensionary benefits under the relevant Rules for which he is statutorily entitled to. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 30877 of 2012 filed by the appellant is also allowed. All the arrears in pension and other retiral benefits should be paid to him with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Since, the appellant was terminated from his service just 6 days prior to his retirement whereby there was no further possibility of any increment, his last one year increment is liable to be deducted from the arrears which he is statutorily entitled to. 17. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The respondent-Company is directed to pay the pension to which the appellant is entitled to and also the arrears due to him, within eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of "V.P. Singh Vs. Shekhawat Gramin Bank & Ors." (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3399/2004). The relevant para 6 reads as under: 6. This Court is of the view that a person, who has rendered more than 22 years of service and has a broadly a clean service record, should have been treated with leniency. It seems to be beyond the capacity of the petitioner to have brought the Dr. The relevant para 6 reads as under: 6. This Court is of the view that a person, who has rendered more than 22 years of service and has a broadly a clean service record, should have been treated with leniency. It seems to be beyond the capacity of the petitioner to have brought the Dr. K.K. Sharma before the authorities as mentioned in the police report that he had already left the State and his current address was not known. However, without entering into merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to substitute the punishment of termination to compulsory retirement. Since the writ petition was filed in 2004, therefore, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority in 2017. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of "Madan Mohan Ahir Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." reported in 2007 (4) RLW 3459. The relevant paras 12 to 14 reads as under: 12. The learned Judges went on to add: how much is the cushion or the elbow room in the matter of punishment? Appellant cannot be reinstated in service. He must remain out of his last employment. Therefore, the only course open to us is to convert the order of punishment into one of compulsory retirement so that while denying service to the appellant he will be ensured retiral benefits. 13. Following the ratio of this judgment in regard to quantum of punishment, we deem it just and appropriate to convert the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement so that the appellant, who had been dismissed after rendering 18 years of service, and had 19 more years of service to his credit and was deprived of this period, can avail the pensionary benefits by computing the period of service of 18 years which he had discharged as Patwari without any complaint. 14. The appeals, thus, are dismissed subject to the relief of grant of pensionary benefit to the appellant by converting the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. However, no cost shall be awarded. 6. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that termination orders came to be passed without taking note of prolong services of the petitioners and otherwise also taking into account the unblemished career of the petitioners, the punishment may be reduced. 7. Counsel for the respondent-Mr. However, no cost shall be awarded. 6. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that termination orders came to be passed without taking note of prolong services of the petitioners and otherwise also taking into account the unblemished career of the petitioners, the punishment may be reduced. 7. Counsel for the respondent-Mr. K.S. Chandel vehemently opposes the submissions that on the basis of unblemished career petitioners would not deserve any reduction in the quantum of punishment as the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act for requisite registration of the vehicle, if not followed, has far reaching consequences which goes into the root of the law and order. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the charges have been well proved and at this stage, the court may not grant any indulgence in favour of the petitioner looking into the factual fact that the charges were levelled for wrong registration of Truck No. RJ-18/G-0526. 8. This court finds that one of the petitioner was working on the post of LDC since 1963 and the other petitioner was working on the post of District Transport Officer since 1977 with unblemished carrier. At the outset, this court finds that the punishment is disproportionate to the charge in question as the petitioners have rendered prolong services and respondents were not required to be take away the complete benefits of their services by a single stroke of termination, hence there is scope for limited intervention. This court while upholding the impugned orders on merits, deems it appropriate to alter the punishment of dismissal with the punishment of compulsorily retirement. It is made clear that all the benefits arising out of compulsorily retirement of the petitioners w.e.f. date of 7.7.2000 & 18.4.2000 shall be admissible to the petitioners and shall be accordingly allowed by the respondents within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that this court on requests of limited prayer of counsel for the petitioners did not adjudicate the matter on merits and merely considered the disproportionate punishment. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.