Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prabhu Lal Choudhary vs Collector Cum Admn.Jodhpur ... on 26 May, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1889/2006

Prabhu Lal Choudhary son of Shri Jora Ramji Choudhary, aged about 60 years, resident of C/o Choudhary Traders, Near Telephone Exchange, Bilara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Collector-cum-Admn., Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Manji Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.

2. The Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited through its Managing Director, Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Manji Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.

                                                                               ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                   :     Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate
                                          assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi
For Respondent(s)                   :     Mr. Kamal Dave



                  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                               Order

26/05/2022

The petitioner was working as Manager with the Jodhpur

Cooperative Bank and was placed under suspension on

26.07.2004 just 4 days before his retirement. He retired on

31.07.2004 and post retirement, his gratuity amount was not

released.

Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has

been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, on

18.03.2006, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under

Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA

Rules) and the proceedings in pursuance to the same were

(D.B. SAW/823/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 5) [CW-1889/2006]

concluded vide the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011. The inquiry

officer exonerated the petitioner qua charge No.2 but found him

guilty for supervisory negligence qua charge No.1. On the basis of

the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was

dismissed from services vide order dated 16.05.2011. After the

dismissal order being passed, the present writ petition was

amended and the order of dismissal was also put to challenge.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that firstly,

no charge-sheet could have been issued to the petitioner after his

retirement. He argued that the petitioner's services were not

governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter

referred to as "RSR Rules") and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "RCS Rules") and

therefore, there being no provision available in the CCA Rules (the

Rules by which the petitioner was governed), neither any charge-

sheet could have been served on the petitioner after his

retirement nor any punishment could have been imposed on him.

Counsel further argued that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides for

a punishment to the government servant and the petitioner being

no more a government servant after his retirement, could not be

governed by the said rule and therefore, in absence of any rule or

provision of law, he could not have been punished.

Regarding the said submission, counsel relied upon the

judgments passed in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar

Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow

and Ors. (Civil Appeals No.5848-49 of 2014, decided on

30.06.2014) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi

Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. (Civil Appeal

(D.B. SAW/823/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 5) [CW-1889/2006]

No.2101/1999, decided on 31.03.1999) reported in (1999) 3

SCC 666.

Counsel further argued that the punishment of dismissal as

imposed is totally disproportionate to the charge as framed and

proved. The petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence

and the punishment of dismissal for a guilt of supervisory

negligence is highly disproportionate. It has been submitted that

all the other persons against whom the inquiry qua the same

charges was conducted, had been exonerated by the inquiry

officer and only the petitioner had been found guilty of supervisory

negligence which also is highly questionable.

Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date

of retirement, the lien of his services with the respondent Bank

came to an end and so too the master and servant relationship.

Therefore, the petitioner was not a government servant who could

have been governed by Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents failed to point out

any provision of the CCA Rules which could govern the matters

wherein any disciplinary proceedings could be conducted against

an employee after his retirement or any punishment thereupon

could be imposed. Admittedly, the services of the present

petitioner are not governed by the RSR but are governed by the

CCA Rules. As noted above, the CCA Rules does not provide for

any inquiry to be conducted after the date of retirement.

In Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as under:

"6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident

(D.B. SAW/823/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 5) [CW-1889/2006]

fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation,

7. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation or continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."

Moresoever, it is clear on record that qua charge No.1 for

which the petitioner had been held guilty of supervisory

negligence, all the other employees involved therein had been

exonerated by the inquiry officer. So far as the punishment of

dismissal is concerned, in terms of the settled proposition of law,

for a guilt of supervisory negligence, punishment of dismissal is

totally disproportionate. The finding as recorded by the inquiry

officer cannot be concluded so as to prove that the guilt was of

such a nature which could culminate into dismissal of service.

In view of the ratio as laid down in Bhagirathi Jena's case

(supra) and in view of the observations as made above, the

impugned order of dismissal dated 16.05.2011 is hereby quashed