State of Rajasthan vs Navneet Kumar Rajpurohit

To question correctness of order dated 06.5.2016 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 216/2009 this appeal is preferred. The learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition under the judgment aforesaid set aside the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur exercising powers under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

Succinctly, facts of the case are that the petitioner-respondent herein while serving as Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, Jodhpur on deputation in the year 1999 was subjected to a disciplinary action as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The Enquiry Officer exonerated him from all the charges of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority being not agreeing with the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to show cause to the delinquent officer by disclosing his disagreement with the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer. A detailed explanation was submitted by the delinquent officer, which is available on record as Annex.7. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving the explanation imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the respondent herein under the order Annex.8. The Disciplinary Authority while imposing penalty under the order aforesaid mentioned grounds for disagreement with the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer. After noticing the grounds for disagreement, he considered record of enquiry and held the petitioner guilty for the charges. While doing so, entire discussion of the evidence available on record was made by him in the following terms :-

"eSaus vkjksi i=kfn] foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ] foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku fjdkMZ ij vkbZ vfHk;kstu@cpko i{k dh ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh lk{; rFkk leLr foHkkxh; tkap vfHkys[kksa dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u ,oa euu fd;k tks ik;k fd Jh lqesj flag ,oa ujir flag ,slk xokg gS ftUgksaus bl rF; dk leFkZu fd;k gS fd vkjksih vf/kdkjh uss Jh vfer JhokLro dks ,d izkFkfed tkap essa ,d ikVhZ dk i{k (Qsoj) ysus dk ncko Mkyk x;kA mDr nksuksa xokgksa }kjk vkjksih vf/kdkjh ds fo:) xokgh nsus ds Bksl dkj.k ugha gSA vkjksih vf/kdkjh dgrk gS fd iwoZ esa mDr nksuksa dk mlds lkFk ,d fookn Fkk vkSj ujir flag us ,d o"kZ lss vf/kd vof/k ds ckn dFku fd;s gSaA vkjksih vf/kdkjh dks foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku mDr eqn~nksa dks mBkus ds fy, vkSj xokgksa ls ftjg dk iwjk ekSdk feyk FkkA vr% vkjksih izekf.kr gSaA"

Learned Single Bench after examining the order passed by Disciplinary Authority held that the reasons for disagreement as per Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958 were not given and, as such, the order is bad. Rule 10A of the Rules of 1958 provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on charge 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 inquiry.

In the instant matter, true it is the Disciplinary Authority forwarded its disagreement to the delinquent officer but that is lacking his own findings on such charge. Besides that, it is pertinent to notice that the order (Annex.8) does not contain finding against each and every charge with reasons.

The total discussion of the evidence available on record is that in the terms referred above under Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 it is obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to support its findings by reasons. If a finding is not supported by such reasons, then that is apparently bad and that certainly causes prejudice to a delinquent employee.

In view of it, we do not find any wrong with the conclusion arrived by the learned Single Bench. The appeal, as such, is having no merit, hence dismissed.