Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2442 (RAJ)

Sumitra Bishnoi v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 18.11.2021 (Annex.2) and the notice dated 15.11.2021 (Annex.1), whereby the petitioner has been issued charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958') and the petitioner has been called upon to take steps in terms of indications made in the communication dated 15.11.2021 respectively. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services after undergoing the requisite competition and was posted as Nayab Tehsildar. It is indicated that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Board of Revenue in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules, 1956 ('Rules of 1956'). The petitioner was posted as Sub-Registrar, Hanumangarh and was on privilege leave from 03.11.2021 to 21.11.2021 and was accorded the additional charge of Teshildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh on 08.11.2021. On 15.11.2021, notice (Annex.1) was given to the petitioner with regard to the task expected to be performed by her. Whereafter, on 18.11.2021, she was issued the statement of allegations under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 indicating six charges. 3. Submissions have been made that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet are baseless. Further, challenge has been laid to the charge sheet dated 18.11.2021 (Annex.2) issued by the Electoral Registration Officer & S.D.O., Hanumangarh on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to issue the charge sheet, as charge sheet under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, could only be issued by the appointing authority, who under Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1956, is the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the charge sheet having been issued by the incompetent authority, it is submitted that the charge sheet deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the provisions of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1956 and Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 that the competent authority qua the petitioner, a Member of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services, is the Chairman, Board of Revenue; thus issuance of the charge sheet by the S.D.O., Hanumangarh is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. Submissions have been made that the charge sheet has been issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, who has no jurisdiction under the law to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner. Further submissions have been made that the purported delegation relied on by the respondents vide Annex. R/4, under Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958 is contrary to the Rules, inasmuch as the petitioner is a Member of State services, the delegation made pertains to the Subordinate and Ministerial Services and, therefore, even as per the said delegation, the S.D.O. had no power to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner. 6. Submissions have also been made that in case the delegation as made, is accepted, the same would render the provisions of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1956 otiose and, therefore also, the issuance of the charge sheet to the petitioner is being without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance has been placed on Lala Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 426/2016 decided on 01.05.2017, Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arora) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19170/2018 decided on 06.02.2019 and Dr. Arjun Ram Kala v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1962/2005 decided on 11.11.2008. 7. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner is baseless. It was submitted that under Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958, the Governor has empowered the Sub Divisional Officer(s) of their respective sub divisions to exercise power under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 for imposing minor penalties, maximum up to stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect in relation to the employees of Subordinate Services and Ministerial Staff Services posted under the respective sub divisions and, therefore, the same would be governed by the notification dated 18.02.2020, the plea thus raised regarding lack of jurisdiction in the S.D.O. to issue the charge sheet has no substance. It was submitted that the plea raised regarding the notification being inapplicable to the petitioner, also has no substance in terms of Rule 8 read with Schedule-II of the Rules of 1958, wherein the Rajasthan Teshildar Service has been included in the Subordinate Services and, therefore, the plea raised with regard to competence of the S.D.O. in issuing the charge sheet, has no substance. It was submitted that by mere indication in the charge sheet of the status of the S.D.O. as Electoral Registration Officer alongwith his status as S.D.O. by itself does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority as available as per the delegation and on that count also, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The challenge laid by the petitioner pertains to the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. in issuance of the charge sheet dated 18.11.2021 under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 to the petitioner. As noticed, the entire basis for questioning the validity is that under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the charge sheet can only be issued by the appointing authority and as the appointing authority of the petitioner under Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1956 is the Chairman, Board of Revenue, the issuance of the charge sheet by the S.D.O. is without jurisdiction. The plea raised, though on the face of it, appears to be correct and based on which the interim order was granted by the Court, however, in view of response of the State and the notification dated 18.02.2020 (Annex. R/4), the plea raised in this regard is apparently baseless. 10. The plea raised, though on the face of it, appears to be correct and based on which the interim order was granted by the Court, however, in view of response of the State and the notification dated 18.02.2020 (Annex. R/4), the plea raised in this regard is apparently baseless. 10. The notification dated 18.02.2020 inter-alia reads as under: Øekad iŒ31@411@2 dkfeZd@dŒ3@tkap@2004 t;iqj fnukad 18-02-2020 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku flfoy lsok 1@4 oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy 1@2 fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 15 ds mi&fue 1@411@2 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj lHkh mi[k.M vf/kdkfj;ksa dks muds mi[k.M esa dk;Zjr leLr v/khuLFk lsokvksa ,oa ea=kyf;d lsokvks ds dkfeZdksa ds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsok 1@4 oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy 1@2 fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 17 ds v/khu y?kq 'kkfLr;k 1@4 vf/kdre nks osru o`f);k vlap;h izHkko ls djus rd 1@2 vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, fo'ks"k :i ls la'kpr djrh gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds n.Mko'k ds fo:) fu;e 23 us fufnZ"V izkf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh tk ldsxhA jkT; iky dh vkKk ls 1@4 lqjs'k dqekj uoy 1@2 'kklu la;qDr lfpo 11. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under: "15. Disciplinary Authorities: (1) In respect of the State Services the Government or the authority specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Services, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government and in respect of Class IV Services, the Head of Office shall be the disciplinary authority. Note: (i) The authority specially empowered to make appointment to a service under rule 12 of these rules shall have power to inflict any of the penalties specified in rule 14. (ii) The State Government or the Head of Department as the case may be shall not empower under this rule any other authority to impose penalties specified in clause (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14. (2) In respect of the State Services the powers of appointment to which is not delegated to a subordinate authority, before imposing the penalties other than censure, and withholding of increments, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted." 12. Rules of 1958, in Part-II, has provided for classification whereby civil services have been classified in the State services, Subordinate Services, Ministerial Services and Class IV services. 13. Rules of 1958, in Part-II, has provided for classification whereby civil services have been classified in the State services, Subordinate Services, Ministerial Services and Class IV services. 13. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under: "8. The Subordinate Services shall consists of: (a) Members of the services included in Schedule II. (b) Persons who hold in a substantive capacity, posts included in Schedule II and not borne on the cadre of any other service. (c) Persons appointed on an 'ad-hoc' basis pending final selection according to the rules of the Integration Department, on posts borne on the cadres of the services referred to in clause (a) or on posts referred to in clause (b)." 14. The second Schedule, to the extent relevant, reads as under: "SCHEDULE-II: SUBORDINATE SERVICE: 1. xxx 2. xxx 3. xxx 4. xxx 5. The Rajasthan Tehsildar Service" 15. A bare perusal of the notification read with the provisions of Rules 8, 15 and the Second Schedule reveals that under Rule 15, the Disciplinary Authority in respect of State services/Subordinate and Ministerial Services are the Government/Head of the Department or the authority specially empowered by the Government/Head of Department. The notification dated 18.02.2020 with reference to the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958 specifically empowers the S.D.O. to impose punishment under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 maximum to the extent of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Further, as the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service has been included in the second Schedule under the Subordinate Services, the authorization dated 18.02.2020, which pertains to all the subordinate and ministerial services, would have full applicability to the case of those appointed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Teshildar Service. 16. In view thereof, as the case of the petitioner is clearly governed by the notification dated 18.02.2020, it cannot be said that the S.D.O. being the Disciplinary Authority, could not have issued the charge sheet to the petitioner. 16. In view thereof, as the case of the petitioner is clearly governed by the notification dated 18.02.2020, it cannot be said that the S.D.O. being the Disciplinary Authority, could not have issued the charge sheet to the petitioner. The submission made that by issuance of the said notification, the provision of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1956 have been rendered otiose, has no substance, inasmuch as the Rules of 1958 under Rule 15 clearly envisage delegation by the Government/Head of Department, the power of the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, once the power of delegation exists in the Rules, it cannot be said that any authority below the appointing authority could not have exercised the power of Disciplinary Authority. 17. In view of above discussion, apparently there is no substance in the submissions made on behalf of petitioner seeking to question the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. in issuance of the charge sheet. 18. The judgments relied on by the petitioner, have no application to the facts of the present case, as in the said cases, the authority was exercised by the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate in relation to an officer of Medical and Health Department and the Accounts Officer at the Municipal Council in the case of Dr. Arjun Ram Kala (supra) and Rakesh Mehandiratta (supra) respectively, qua whom the authorities issuing the order of suspension, were not the Disciplinary Authority. In the case of Lalaram Meena (supra), the aspect of delegation was not under consideration. 19. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. 20. The stay petition is also dismissed.