Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-18

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : [Munnuri Laxman, J.] : 1) The present Special Appeal challenges the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3606/2017, whereunder the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate Authority was, confirmed. 2) The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and also made forfeiture of service from 29.09.2004 to 04.12.2009 vide order dated 07.06.2011 for proved charge of being continuous absent from duties without prior intimation and permission. The appellant challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated 06.07.2015 allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the imposition of penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, however, confirmed the forfeiture of service as ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, while concurring with the findings of the Appellate Authority, has disinclined to interfere with the impugned order and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2023. Hence, the present special appeal has been filed. 3) Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the grievance of the appellant before the Appellate Authority as well as before the learned Single Judge was that after the enquiry report was submitted and before the order of punishment was passed, the Disciplinary Authority neither served a copy of enquiry report nor afforded an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report. Such action of the respondents are contrary to Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). Hence, he prays for the appeal being allowed and impugned order of learned Single Judge being set aside and Writ Petition be allowed. 5) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the punishment imposed was proportionate to the charge, which the appellant has faced. Both the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge found the proportionality of the punishment for the charges proved. Such findings of learned Single Judge require no interference. 6) We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge found the proportionality of the punishment for the charges proved. Such findings of learned Single Judge require no interference. 6) We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) The background facts reveal that appellant was Class-IV employee working in a government school. The charge against him was that he was continuously absenting himself from the duty without any prior permission. For continuous absence, charges were framed against him by following the due procedure. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were concluded by due process of law. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The provision of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 requires that the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy of report of enquiry to the delinquent, who shall require to submit, if so desire, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of such receipt. When such a representation is filed, the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the same in terms of Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. 8) The grievance of the appellant before the Appellate Authority as well as before the learned Single Judge was that before passing the order imposing penalty, the Disciplinary Authority has neither furnished the enquiry report nor afforded an opportunity to submit written submission or representation to the findings in the enquiry report. Without following such procedure, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 07.06.2011. 9) One of the ground raised in the appeal is that the Disciplinary Authority before passing the order of punishment has not followed the provision of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the appellant was not served with any enquiry report nor any opportunity was given to submit written representation or submission as required. Thereby, he was deprived of making representation or submission, which would have been an influencing factor while taking decision by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereby, there is violation of the rules. The appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal setting aside the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, however, confirmed the forfeiture of service from 29.09.2004 to 04.12.2009. Thereby, he was deprived of making representation or submission, which would have been an influencing factor while taking decision by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereby, there is violation of the rules. The appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal setting aside the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, however, confirmed the forfeiture of service from 29.09.2004 to 04.12.2009. There is no reference to the essential grounds raised by the delinquent before the Appellate Authority. The appellant also raised a similar ground before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge also did not advert to such ground. 10) We have gone through the record and we find that there is no record to show that enquiry report was furnished to the appellant and a written representation or submission was obtained. Thereby, he lost the opportunity to make the representation or submission to the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. Such a representation was required to be considered under Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 before proceeding further in terms of Sub-rules (11) & (11A) of Rule 16. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there are violation of procedures. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed. 11) In the result, the Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 as well as the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 07.06.2011 and the Disciplinary Authority dated 06.07.2015 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after furnishing the enquiry report in terms of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The appellant if so desires, shall submit his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days from the date of such service. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered before passing any further order in term of Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. 12) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.