Ram Dev Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—The Petitioner, a Patwari, was subjected to disciplinary action under a memorandum dated 30.11.2000 issued by the disciplinary authority exercising powers u/s 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The Petitioner submitted his explanation and denied all the four charges of misconduct levelled against him. Considering the same, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 18.8.2003. Pertinent to note here that the Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 30.1.2003, therefore, the report of enquiry officer and the entire record of enquiry was submitted to the State Government. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Revenue (Group-I), Jaipur under a communication dated 19.11.2003 supplied a copy of enquiry report to the Petitioner and also demanded his comments on the findings given by the enquiry officer. A detailed explanation (Annex.8) was submitted by the Petitioner, wherein he stated that the enquiry officer failed to consider the evidence adduced in defence and also that the mutation entered by the delinquent on the basis of which allegations of misconduct are made were affirmed by the competent authorities.

The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Revenue (Group-I), Jaipur then passed the orde4r impugned dated 21.10.2005 withholding the Petitioner''s pension to the extent of 10% permanently. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that as per Rule 16 (9) of the Rules of 1958 the disciplinary authority if that is not the enquirying authority, is required to consider the record of enquiry and record its findings on each charge but in the instant matter, no such findings are given. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority while imposing penalty i.e. of withholding of 10% part of the pension, did not examine the record and also not examined that whether the prosecution adduced any such evidence that was sufficient to held the Petitioner guilty for the misconducts alleged.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents stating therein that the entire enquiry was conducted as per the provisions of the Rules of 1958 and a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to defend himself but he failed to establish his innocence. It is also submitted that the findings given by the disciplinary authority are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is well-settled that a quasi judicial authority is required to pass a speaking and reasoned order while deciding civil rights of any person. The findings of such quasi judicial authority should be based on adequate discussion of the evidence/material available on record. A disciplinary authority under the Rules of 1958 also discharges a quasi judicial power.

Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 puts an embargo upon the disciplinary authority if that is not the enquiring authority to consider the record of enquiry and record its findings on each charge. The term "consideration of record" implicit thorough examination of the entire record of enquiry, that includes evidence adduced by both the parties. In the instant matter, the order passed by the disciplinary authority on its face appears to be passed in a mechanical manner.

The disciplinary authority i.e. the State Government did not care even to mention the allegations against the delinquent employee, the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry and also the comments made by the Petitioner relating to the findings given by the enquiry officer. The findings given by the disciplinary authority reads as under:

jkT; Lrj ls fu;fer tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr vipkjh dks miyC/k djokdj vfHkdFku pkgk x;k] lds }kjk vfHkdFku esa vafdr fd;k x;k fd tkap esa izLrqr rF; ,oa uthjksa dks ugha ekuus ds dkj.k vafdr ugha fd;s x;s] foHkkxh; i{k }kjk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s] 22 o"kZ ckn vkns''k ugha feyus ds fy, nks"kh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS A ukekUrjdj.k >wBk Fkk tks mls fujh{kd }kjk tkap ,oa rglhynkj }kjk rLnhd fdl izdkj fd;k x;k Fkk] ukekUrjdj.k djus ek= ls fjdkMZ esa rCnhy ugha gksrk gS A tkap djus okyk fujh{kd ,oa rLnhd djus okykrglhynkj nks"kh gS A

vipkjh }kjk ,sls dksZ izek.k @ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s] ftlds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk ds e/;utj Jh jkenso lsokfuo`r iVokjh dks n;s isa''ku dk 10 izfr''kr Hkkx tc rd mUgsa isa''ku feys rc rd n.M Lo:i jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;s tkus dk izLrkfor djrs gq, jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dk ijke''kZ gsrq fHktok;k x;k A

jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx us vius i= la- 875 fnuakd 26- 8-05 esa Jh jkenso ''kekZ] lsokfuo`r iVokjh dks ns; isa''ku dk 10 izfr''kr Hkkx tc rd mUgsa isa''ku feys tCr @ jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;s tkus dh lykg iznku dh xbZ A

vk;ksx dk ijke''kZ e; lEcaf/kr leLr vfHkys[k ds izdj.k esa vafdr fu.kZ; gsrq egkefge jkT;iky egksn; dh vkKkFkZ izLrqr fd;k x;k A izekf.kr vkjksiks dh xaHkhjrk ,ao vk;ksx ds ijke''kZ ds e/;utj egkefge jkt;iky egksn; dh Jh jkenso ''kekZ] lsokfuo`r iVokjh dks n;s isa''ku dk 10 izfr''kr Hkkx LFkkbZ :i ls jksds tkus dh vkKk ,rn~ }kjk ikfjr djrs gSa A

A bare reading of the relevant portion of the order impugned makes it clear that neither the record of enquiry was examined by the disciplinary authority nor he recorded his findings on each charge. The order, as such, is apparently in violation of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958. The non-compliance of the provision aforesaid makes the order bad, as such, that deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Revenue (Group-I), Jaipur is quashed. The Petitioner is declared entitled for all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs.