Ajay Jain @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 15th of March, 2016 (Annex.5) as well as order of Appellate

Authority dated 8th of February, 2017 (Annex.7). By its order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of Disciplinary Authority, who held that

the charges brought against the petitioner were proved and inflicted punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect

on the petitioner.

The facts, relevant for disposal of present petition, are that the petitioner, who was appointed as Excise Inspector in the respondent department vide

order dated 08.05.2006, was served a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958

levelling four charges against him including that despite direction for taking extra care and conducting raids in connection with spurious liquor he was

negligent in discharging his duties and an incident took place in Pali on 21.01.2011 taking lives of some people. The act of the petitioner in not

discharging duties properly was branded as of gross negligence. Another charge related with not inspecting the areas timely and due to that methyl

alcohol was served in Pali and the incident happened. It was also a charge against him that he did not stay in District Pali and Bali, where he was

posted during the year 2010-11 and if the petitioner would have stayed and inspected the areas diligently, then strict actions could been taken against

erring persons and as such he was responsible for the said act of negligence.  Reply to the charge sheet was submitted by petitioner denying all

the charges levelled against him and it was stated that he was quite vigilant and had made efforts to inform the public on loud speakers about spurious

liquor and the incident that happened in Jodhpur. It was averred in the reply that on 21.01.2011, he was assigned special duty of escorting Excise

Minister from Sendra to Circuit House, Jodhpur, and even during duty he was in contact with his subordinates and instructed them to keep a check on

the situation. While denying the charge that raids were not conducted, he mentioned that 42 cases were registered during 2010-11 and out of them

in 22 cases he was personally present and registered the same. Denying the charge of not discharging duties properly,  it is stated in the reply

that total 1198 shops of liquor were inspected by him and in 12 shops deficiencies were found in respect of which cases were registered as such he

discharged his duties well. He emphasized that during his tenure total 195 inspections were conducted and night stays at Pali and Bali were totaling

to 138.

After joint enquiry in the matter, Enquiry Officer gave a positive finding in favour of petitioner that he was not at all guilty of the charges leveled

against him rather was quite vigilant and discharged his duties sincerely with dedication. Enquiry report stated that the petitioner conducted

sufficient raids and on the date of incident he was on special duty of escorting the Excise Minister from Sendra to Circuit House, Jodhpur and

accordingly he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer.

After exoneration of petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority served a notice on petitioner indicating that he was guilty of the

charges leveled. In response thereto, petitioner filed his reply reiterating the averments made in reply to the chargesheet and mentioned that there

being no witness or documentary evidence the Enquiry Officer rightly not found him guilty of any of the charges leveled against him, therefore, the

proceedings against him be dropped. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority - Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, passed order dated 15.03.2016 holding

the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled and inflicted punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing

and without considering the reply and record of the case which speaks volume about the raids conducted by petitioner. Learned counsel argued that

preventive actions were taken by petitioner in discharge of his duties and on the fateful day he was discharging the duty of escorting Excise Minister

which clearly shows diligence on his part but without any notice of disagreement the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings drawn by

Enquiry Officer and thereby caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner and thus issuance of notice by Disciplinary Authority was just an empty

formality. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner time and again conducted raids and large number of cases were registered by him

but the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the material available on record and without assigning any reason held him guilty. Learned counsel

further contended that the Appellate Authority also failed to consider the grounds raised in memo of appeal and passed an order which is violative of

Rule 30 of Rules of 1958, therefore, impugned orders as well as infliction of penalty of stopping one annual grade increment without cumulative effect

are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and has submitted that the post of petitioner forms a

part of preventive force of the respondent Department, whose primary object is to eliminate and curb illegal sale and smuggling of illicit liquor.  Â

It is also submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner by citing other duties could not shirk away from his duties, which he was otherwise bound to

discharge.  Learned counsel further submits that due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and after considering the reply filed by

petitioner, impugned order dated 15.03.2016 was passed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and materials available on record.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to quote clause 10-A of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, which reads as under:-

“The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such

disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose and the same to be forwarded to the

Government Servant for his representation along with a copy of the report of the inquiry.â€​

From the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that Disciplinary Authority is not only required to record reasons for disagreement but the said reasons

must be communicated to the incumbent so as to enable him to respond to the said reasons for disagreement. In the instant case, as the findings of

Enquiry Officer were completely in favour of petitioner, action on the part of Disciplinary Authority violated the provision of Rule 16(10-A) of the

Rules of 1958 as well as principles of natural justice and therefore passing of the order by the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable. The

appellate authority too failed to take note of this aspect and without considering the material on record and without giving categorical finding on each

and every charge passed impugned order dated 14.02.2017 upholding the order passed by disciplinary authority dated 15.03.2016 inflicting punishment

of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, therefore, the order passed by Appellate Authority is also not sustainable. In

totality of circumstances, the writ petition deserves acceptance and impugned order dated 15.03.2016 (Annex.5), passed by Disciplinary Authority so

also order dated 14.02.20017, passed by Appellate Authority (Annex.7), are to be annulled.

The upshot of above discussion is that the present petition is allowed and orders impugned dated 15.3.2016 (Annex.5) and 08.02.2017 (Annex.7) are

quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits.

No orders as to costs.