Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brij Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JD:9882-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 552/2024
Brij Lal S/o Shri Triloka Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village
Jorawarpura, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.S.Bhaleria, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Yogesh Sharma on behalf of
Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
18/02/2025
[Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :
1) The present Special Appeal challenges the order dated
05.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No. 3606/2017, whereunder the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Appellate Authority was,
confirmed.
2) The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of
withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect
and also made forfeiture of service from 29.09.2004 to
04.12.2009 vide order dated 07.06.2011 for proved charge of
[2025:RJ-JD:9882-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-552/2024]
being continuous absent from duties without prior intimation and
permission. The appellant challenged the said order before the
Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated
06.07.2015 allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the
imposition of penalty of withholding two annual grade increments
with cumulative effect, however, confirmed the forfeiture of
service as ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single
Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, while concurring
with the findings of the Appellate Authority, has disinclined to
interfere with the impugned order and consequently, the writ
petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2023. Hence, the
present special appeal has been filed.
3) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
4) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
contended that the grievance of the appellant before the Appellate
Authority as well as before the learned Single Judge was that after
the enquiry report was submitted and before the order of
punishment was passed, the Disciplinary Authority neither served
a copy of enquiry report nor afforded an opportunity to respond to
the enquiry report. Such action of the respondents are contrary to
Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Rules of 1958"). Hence, he prays for the appeal being
allowed and impugned order of learned Single Judge being set
aside and Writ Petition be allowed.
5) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has submitted that the punishment imposed was
[2025:RJ-JD:9882-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-552/2024]
proportionate to the charge, which the appellant has faced. Both
the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge found
the proportionality of the punishment for the charges proved.
Such findings of learned Single Judge require no interference.
6) We have considered the submissions made by counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
7) The background facts reveal that appellant was Class-IV
employee working in a government school. The charge against
him was that he was continuously absenting himself from the duty
without any prior permission. For continuous absence, charges
were framed against him by following the due procedure. An
Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were
concluded by due process of law. The Enquiry Officer found all the
charges proved and submitted his report to the Disciplinary
Authority. The provision of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of
1958 requires that the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy
of report of enquiry to the delinquent, who shall require to submit,
if so desire, his written representation or submission to the
Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of such receipt. When such a
representation is filed, the Disciplinary Authority is required to
consider the same in terms of Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the
Rules of 1958.
8) The grievance of the appellant before the Appellate
Authority as well as before the learned Single Judge was that
before passing the order imposing penalty, the Disciplinary
Authority has neither furnished the enquiry report nor afforded an
opportunity to submit written submission or representation to the
[2025:RJ-JD:9882-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-552/2024]
findings in the enquiry report. Without following such procedure,
the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 07.06.2011.
9) One of the ground raised in the appeal is that the
Disciplinary Authority before passing the order of punishment has
not followed the provision of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules
of 1958 and the appellant was not served with any enquiry report
nor any opportunity was given to submit written representation or
submission as required. Thereby, he was deprived of making
representation or submission, which would have been an
influencing factor while taking decision by the Disciplinary
Authority. Thereby, there is violation of the rules. The appellate
Authority partly allowed the appeal setting aside the punishment
of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative
effect, however, confirmed the forfeiture of service from
29.09.2004 to 04.12.2009. There is no reference to the essential
grounds raised by the delinquent before the Appellate Authority.
The appellant also raised a similar ground before the learned
Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge also did not
advert to such ground.
10) We have gone through the record and we find that there
is no record to show that enquiry report was furnished to the
appellant and a written representation or submission was
obtained. Thereby, he lost the opportunity to make the
representation or submission to the enquiry report before the
Disciplinary Authority. Such a representation was required to be
considered under Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958
before proceeding further in terms of Sub-rules (11) & (11A) of
Rule 16. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there
[2025:RJ-JD:9882-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-552/2024]
are violation of procedures. Therefore, the present appeal is liable
to be allowed.
11) In the result, the Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 as well as the
orders of the Appellate Authority dated 07.06.2011 and the
Disciplinary Authority dated 06.07.2015 are hereby quashed. The
matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with a
direction to pass a fresh order after furnishing the enquiry report
in terms of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The
appellant if so desires, shall submit his written representation or
submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days from the
date of such service. If any such representation is filed, the same
shall be considered before passing any further order in term of
Sub-rule (10B) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.
12) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
66-NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
