Sumitra Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11422 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17208/2021

Sumitra Bishnoi W/o Dharmpal Bishnoi, aged about 42 Years, Resident of D-10, Vakil Colony, Vriddhashram Road, Sri Ganganagar presently working as Sub-Registrar, Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Electoral Registration Officer, Hanumangarh

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Dutt.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Dy. G.C.

Dr. Harish Purohit.

Mr. D.K. Joshi.

Mr. Nitin Mehta.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 14/09/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 18.11.2021

(Annex.2) and the notice dated 15.11.2021 (Annex.1), whereby

the petitioner has been issued charge sheet under Rule 17 of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1958 ('Rules of 1958') and the petitioner has been called upon to

take steps in terms of indications made in the communication

dated 15.11.2021 respectively.

(2 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the

petitioner was appointed in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services after

undergoing the requisite competition and was posted as Nayab

Tehsildar. It is indicated that the appointing authority of the

petitioner is the Board of Revenue in terms of Rule 3 (a) of the

Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules, 1956 ('Rules of 1956'). The

petitioner was posted as Sub-Registrar, Hanumangarh and was on

privilege leave from 03.11.2021 to 21.11.2021 and was accorded

the additional charge of Teshildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh on

08.11.2021. On 15.11.2021, notice (Annex.1) was given to the

petitioner with regard to the task expected to be performed by

her. Whereafter, on 18.11.2021, she was issued the statement of

allegations under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 indicating six

charges.

Submissions have been made that the charges levelled

against the petitioner vide charge sheet are baseless. Further,

challenge has been laid to the charge sheet dated 18.11.2021

(Annex.2) issued by the Electoral Registration Officer & S.D.O.,

Hanumangarh on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to issue

the charge sheet, as charge sheet under Rule 13 of the Rules of

1958, could only be issued by the appointing authority, who under

Rule 3 (a) of the Rules of 1956, is the Board of Revenue and,

therefore, the charge sheet having been issued by the

incompetent authority, it is submitted that the charge sheet

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with

reference to the provisions of Rule 3 (a) of the Rules of 1956 and

(3 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 that the competent authority qua the

petitioner, a Member of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services, is the

Chairman, Board of Revenue; thus issuance of the charge sheet

by the S.D.O., Hanumangarh is without jurisdiction and therefore,

the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions have been made that the charge sheet has

been issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, who has no

jurisdiction under the law to issue the charge sheet to the

petitioner. Further submissions have been made that the

purported delegation relied on by the respondents vide Annex.R/4,

under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1958 is contrary to the Rules,

inasmuch as the petitioner is a Member of State services, the

delegation made pertains to the Subordinate and Ministerial

Services and, therefore, even as per the said delegation, the

S.D.O. had no power to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner.

Submissions have also been made that in case the

delegation as made, is accepted, the same would render the

provisions of Rule 3 (a) of the Rules of 1956 otiose and, therefore

also, the issuance of the charge sheet to the petitioner is being

without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside. Reliance has been placed on Lala Ram Meena vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.426/2016 decided on

01.05.2017, Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arora) vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19170/2018 decided on

06.02.2019 and Dr. Arjun Ram Kala vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1962/2005 decided on

11.11.2008.

(4 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the

plea raised by the petitioner is baseless. It was submitted that

under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1958, the Governor has

empowered the Sub Divisional Officer(s) of their respective sub

divisions to exercise power under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 for

imposing minor penalties, maximum up to stoppage of two annual

grade increments without cumulative effect in relation to the

employees of Subordinate Services and Ministerial Staff Services

posted under the respective sub divisions and, therefore, the

same would be governed by the notification dated 18.02.2020, the

plea thus raised regarding lack of jurisdiction in the S.D.O. to

issue the charge sheet has no substance. It was submitted that

the plea raised regarding the notification being inapplicable to the

petitioner, also has no substance in terms of Rule 8 read with

Schedule-II of the Rules of 1958, wherein the Rajasthan Teshildar

Service has been included in the Subordinate Services and,

therefore, the plea raised with regard to competence of the S.D.O.

in issuing the charge sheet, has no substance. It was submitted

that by mere indication in the charge sheet of the status of the

S.D.O. as Electoral Registration Officer alongwith his status as

S.D.O. by itself does not take away the jurisdiction of the

authority as available as per the delegation and on that count

also, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

                                        (5 of 8)                    [CW-17208/2021]


     The   challenge    laid     by    the     petitioner       pertains   to   the

jurisdiction of the S.D.O. in issuance of the charge sheet dated

18.11.2021 under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 to the petitioner.

As noticed, the entire basis for questioning the validity is that

under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the charge sheet can only be

issued by the appointing authority and as the appointing authority

of the petitioner under Rule 3 (a) of the Rules of 1956 is the

Chairman, Board of Revenue, the issuance of the charge sheet by

the S.D.O. is without jurisdiction. The plea raised, though on the

face of it, appears to be correct and based on which the interim

order was granted by the Court, however, in view of response of

the State and the notification dated 18.02.2020 (Annex.R/4), the

plea raised in this regard is apparently baseless.

The notification dated 18.02.2020 inter-alia reads as under:

"Øekad i-3¼1½ [email protected]@[email protected] t;iqj fnukad 18-02-2020

vf/klwpuk jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 15 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj lHkh mi[k.M vf/kdkfj;ksa dks muds mi[k.M esa dk;Zjr leLr v/khuLFk lsokvksa ,oa ea=kyf;d lsokvks ds dkfeZdksa ds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 17 ds v/khu y?kq 'kkfLr;k ¼vf/kdre nks osru o`f);k vlap;h izHkko ls djus rd½ vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, fo'ks"k :i ls la'kpr djrh gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds n.Mko'k ds fo:) fu;e 23 us fufnZ"V izkf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh tk ldsxhA jkT; iky dh vkKk ls ¼lqjs'k dqekj uoy½ 'kklu la;qDr lfpo"

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:

"15. Disciplinary Authorities: (1) In respect of the State Services the Government or the authority specially

(6 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

empowered by the Government in that behalf, in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Services, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government and in respect of Class IV Services, the Head of Office shall be the disciplinary authority.

Note: (i) The authority specially empowered to make appointment to a service under rule 12 of these rules shall have power to inflict any of the penalties specified in rule

14.

(ii) The State Government or the Head of Department as the case may be shall not empower under this rule any other authority to impose penalties specified in clause (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14.

(2) In respect of the State Services the powers of appointment to which is not delegated to a subordinate authority, before imposing the penalties other than censure, and withholding of increments, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted."

Rules of 1958, in Part-II, has provided for classification

whereby civil services have been classified in the State services,

Subordinate Services, Ministerial Services and Class IV services.

Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:

"8. The Subordinate Services shall consists of:

(a) Members of the services included in Schedule II.

(b) Persons who hold in a substantive capacity, posts included in Schedule II and not borne on the cadre of any other service.

(c) Persons appointed on an 'ad-hoc' basis pending final selection according to the rules of the Integration Department, on posts borne on the cadres of the services referred to in clause (a) or on posts referred to in clause (b)."

(7 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

The second Schedule, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

"SCHEDULE-II: SUBORDINATE SERVICE:

1. xxx

2. xxx

3. xxx

4. xxx

5. The Rajasthan Tehsildar Service"

A bare perusal of the notification read with the provisions of

Rules 8, 15 and the Second Schedule reveals that under Rule 15,

the Disciplinary Authority in respect of State services/Subordinate

and Ministerial Services are the Government/Head of the

Department or the authority specially empowered by the

Government/Head of Department. The notification dated

18.02.2020 with reference to the provisions of Rule 15 (1) of the

Rules of 1958 specifically empowers the S.D.O. to impose

punishment under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 maximum to the

extent of stoppage of two annual grade increments without

cumulative effect. Further, as the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service has

been included in the second Schedule under the Subordinate

Services, the authorization dated 18.02.2020, which pertains to all

the subordinate and ministerial services, would have full

applicability to the case of those appointed under the provisions of

the Rajasthan Teshildar Service.

In view thereof, as the case of the petitioner is clearly

governed by the notification dated 18.02.2020, it cannot be said

that the S.D.O. being the Disciplinary Authority, could not have

issued the charge sheet to the petitioner. The submission made

that by issuance of the said notification, the provision of Rule 3 (a)

of the Rules of 1956 have been rendered otiose, has no

(8 of 8) [CW-17208/2021]

substance, inasmuch as the Rules of 1958 under Rule 15 clearly

envisage delegation by the Government/Head of Department, the

power of the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, once the power

of delegation exists in the Rules, it cannot be said that any

authority below the appointing authority could not have exercised

the power of Disciplinary Authority.

In view of above discussion, apparently there is no

substance in the submissions made on behalf of petitioner seeking

to question the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. in issuance of the charge

sheet.

The judgments relied on by the petitioner, have no

application to the facts of the present case, as in the said cases,

the authority was exercised by the District Election Officer-cum-

District Magistrate in relation to an officer of Medical and Health

Department and the Accounts Officer at the Municipal Council in

the case of Dr. Arjun Ram Kala (supra) and Rakesh Mehandiratta

(supra) respectively, qua whom the authorities issuing the order of

suspension, were not the Disciplinary Authority. In the case of

Lalaram Meena (supra), the aspect of delegation was not under

consideration.

In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ

petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)