Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tulcha Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:1668]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16227/2024
Tulcha Ram S/o Shri Pat Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward
No. 2, Behind Circuit House, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personal (A-3/inquiry)
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Department Of Finance (Revenue),
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, District
Churu.
5. Vinod Poonia, Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, District
Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki and Mr. Jai
Pareek for Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek
Ms. Meenal Singhvi for Mr. Rajesh
Panwar, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Reportable 10/01/2025
1. The petitioner has called in question the disciplinary
proceedings initiated by the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Personnel vide memorandum of charges dated 13.05.2024 on the
ground of jurisdiction and competence.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in Public
Works Department, Churu by order dated 04.10.2021 issued by
(Downloaded on 14/01/2025 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (2 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
the Joint Secretary, Finance. His appointing authority is, Secretary,
Finance Department.
3. A common and combined charge-sheet has been issued
against the petitioner and one Amarjeet Singh, who was working
as a Devolpment Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, Churu.
Appointing authority of said Amarjeet Singh was Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department and disciplinary authority is
Department of Personnel, as he was in State services.
4. While informing that the petitioner's services are governed
by the Rajasthan Accounts Service Rules, 1984, Mr. Bhaleria,
learned counsel asserted that petitioner's disciplinary authority is
the Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance.
5. The basic plank of challenge is, that since the Department of
Personnel is neither the petitioner's appointing authority nor the
disciplinary authority, it cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings
against him.
6. It was argued by Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the
petitioner that if any disciplinary action is to be taken against the
petitioner, it is his parent department i.e. Department of Finance,
which can take decision to initiate the proceedings and issue
charge-sheet and not the Department of Personnel.
7. Ms. Meenal Singhvi, appearing for the respondent-State
submitted that on account of involvement of two persons - the
petitioner and one Amarjeet Singh, the State decided to initiate
proceedings against both the delinquents and since one was from
Finance Department (petitioner) and the other was from
Department of Personnel (Amarjeet Singh), proceedings against
(Downloaded on 14/01/2025 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (3 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
them were initiated conjointly by the Department of Personnel
vide memorandum of charges dated 13.05.2024.
8. While relying upon Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'CCA Rules, 1958), she argued that the
Department of Personnel was justified in initiating disciplinary
proceedings and serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner. She
read the text of Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958 and argued that the
same empowers the Department of Personnel to do so.
9. In rejoinder Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in
the case of Prem Shanker vs. High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan & Ors : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1289/1981,
reported in 1991 1 WLC 170 and highlighted that in almost
similar circumstances, this Court has held that disciplinary
proceedings are required to be initiated by the disciplinary
authority. However, one common Inquiry Officer can be appointed
and inquiry be conducted in order to ensure that one common set
of evidence can be used qua both such employees so as to save
time and duplicacy of proceedings.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Rule 18 of the Rule of CCA Rules, 1958 reads thus:-
Joint Enquiry:-
(1) Where two or more Government Servants
are concerned in any case, the Government
or any other authority competent to impose
the penalty of dismissal from service on all
such Government Servants may make an
order directing that disciplinary action against
(Downloaded on 14/01/2025 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (4 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
all of them may be taken in a common
proceedings.
(2) Any such order shall specify -
(i) the authority which may function as
the Disciplinary Authority for the
purpose of such common proceedings;
(ii) the penalties specified in rule 14
which such Disciplinary Authority shall
be competent to impose; and
(iii) whether the procedure prescribed
in rule 16 to 17 may be followed in the
proceeding."
12. A few facts are indisputed that the charges revolve around
the financial and other irregularities committed in Panchayat
Samiti, Rajgarh (Churu), in which, at the relevant time, the
petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer and Amarjeet Singh, a
Development Officer were working in harness. There is also no
denial of the fact that the petitioner's appointing and disciplinary
authority is State of Rajasthan in the Department of Finance, while
appointing authority of other employee namely Amarjeet Singh is
Panchayati Raj Department and disciplinary authority is
Department of Personnel.
13. Since, two persons from different departments are being
conjointly proceeded and hence Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958, can
be pressed into service, without any doubt and legal hurdle.
Because, Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958, provides that when two or
more Government employees are involved in any delinquency or
misconduct, the State Government or any other competent
authority to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all
such Government servants, may by an order direct that
(Downloaded on 14/01/2025 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (5 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
disciplinary action against all of them be taken by way of common
proceedings.
14. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958 prescribes
that such order shall clearly specify the authority, who shall
function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of common
proceedings and the penalties which such authorities could
impose, including the fact as to whether the procedure prescribed
in Rules 16 and 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 are required to be followed
or not.
15. In the opinion of this Court, the purpose of Rule 18 is to
streamline the inquiry and ensure synergy of the disciplinary
proceedings, so as to ward off wastage of time and resources and
also to avert possibility of having two different findings and
punishments qua similar or common delinquency.
16. According to this Court, simply because the Department of
Personnel is disciplinary authority of one of the employee namely
Amarjeet Singh, the State Government and the Secretary,
Department of Personnel cannot take unto itself, the initiation and
continuation of proceedings so also culmination thereof in
imposition of penalty upon a government servant, who is
otherwise not under his administrative umbrella and supervisory
control.
17. Afore view is fortified by the adjudication made by this Court
in the case of Prem Shanker (supra); para Nos.7 and 8 whereof
are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"7. ........
..........
A perusal of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules will
show that it is attracted or can be attracted
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (6 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
only in a case where the evidence which is
likely to come is common and the
incident/incidents in relation to which the
inquiry is/are made are almost the same. In
the instant case the inquiry was in relation to
the loss of railway parcel of civil suit
No.17/72 of the court of learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Bundi and,
therefore, there can be no dispute that it
was case where joint inquiry could have been
initiated. Rule 18 of the C.C.A Rules provides
that when two or more Government servants
are concerned in any case, the Government
or any other authority competent to impose
the penalty of dismissal from service on all
such Government servants may make an
order directing that disciplinary action against
all of them may be taken in a common
proceeding. But sub-rule (2) of Rule 18
makes it clear that any such order shall
specify:-
(i) the authority which may function as the
Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such
common proceedings;
(ii) the penalties specified in rule 14 which
such Disciplinary Authority shall be
competent to impose; and
(iii) whether the procedure prescribed in rule
16 to 17 may be followed in the proceeding.
8. The aforesaid orders are necessary to
attract Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules. A perusal
of the order dated 1st May 1979 of the
Rajasthan High Court, informing the District &
Sessions Judge, Bundi that he has been
directed that departmental enquiry may be
initiated by him against the petitioner and
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (7 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
Bahadur Singh show that it has not been
specified therein as to the penalties specified
in rule 14 and whether the procedure
prescribe under Rule 16 or 17 may be
followed or not, it is lacking in the order of
the Rajasthan High Court and it does not
appear to be as required under Rule 18 of the
C.C.A. Rules. But it cannot be said that it has
caused any prejudice to the petitioner. So far
as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the
District & Sessions Judge, Bundi was the
Disciplinary Authority. Generally Rule 18 of
the C.C.A. Rule will be attracted in such a
situation where there are two disciplinary
authorities of the Government servants but
the nature of enquiry is such that the charges
are identical, they related to the same
subject matter, evidence likely to be
produced is common and, therefore, such
authority who may be competent to inflict
penalty as provided under Rule 14 or 17 of
the C.C.A. Rules as the case may be, may be
appointed to function as Disciplinary
Authority, for the purpose of common
proceeding. But at the same time, it appears
that even if there are two disciplinary
authorities there is no bar to appoint any one
of them for the purpose of common enquiry
and in that case after making an enquiry, the
enquiry officer will have to submit his report
to the disciplinary authority who will be the
competent to award the penalties provided
under Rules 14 and 15 of the C.C.A. Rules as
the case may be. Therefore, it can be said
that under the order of the Rajasthan High
Court, the District & Sessions Judge, Bundi
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (8 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
was appointed a common enquiry officer who
made the enquiry and thereafter, as directed
by the Rajasthan High Court submitted his
report to the District and Sessions Judge,
Bundi as well as District & Sessions Judge,
Kota. So far as the employees under their
judge-ships namely the petitioner and
Bahadur Singh were concerned. The
disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of
removal from service so far as the petitioner
is concerned, whereas the disciplinary
authority (District & Sessions Judge, Kota) is
concerned he imposed a penalty of censure
on Bahadur Singh. Thus, so far as this
argument of the learned counsel that there
has been contravention of Rule 18 of the
C.C.A. Rules deserve no merit as aforesaid."
18. A perusal of Rule 18 reveals that it provides that
Government or any other authority competent to impose the
penalty of dismissal from service on all such employees may make
an order regarding disciplinary action to be taken against all of
them. Such order should clearly specify which authority shall
function as disciplinary authority for the purpose of common
proceedings, while also delineating the scope of action to be taken
as per sub-rule (2) of the Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958.
19. But the crucial question which crops up for consideration of
this Court and which needs to be ironed out is, who shall be the
authority competent to pass order under Rule 18 of the CCA
Rules, 1958?
20. Neither Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958 gives clear answer nor
has any Government Order/notification etc. been brought to
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (9 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
notice, which could throw some light on this aspect or provide
guidance.
21. In a quest for finding the answer, this court waded through
the Rajasthan Rules of Business, issued by Hon'ble the Governor
of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers under Clauses (2) and (3)
of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
22. According to Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Rules of Business,
disposal of business relating to items common to all departments
is to be made in the manner specified in the Appendix-B. All
decisions relating to services, including disciplinary matters,
suspension and institution of disciplinary proceedings are required
to be undertaken by the Deputy Secretary or the Secretary, as the
case may be, of the concerned department.
23. As such, in the case of the petitioner whose parent
department is Finance Department, the disciplinary action (if any)
can be taken by the Secretary of the Finance Department and not
by the Department of Personnel. Furthermore, since the other
employee involved in the alleged irregularities namely, Amarjeet
Singh hails from the State services and his parent department is
Department of Personnel, it is the Secretary of the Department of
Personnel, who is empowered to initiate proceedings against him.
24. If Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is taken into account, it
provides that in such cases, the State Government or authority
competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on both the
employees can pass an order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules,
1958.
25. Direct answer to the question-which is the authority
competent to pass such order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules,
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (10 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
1958 is not available under the CCA Rules, 1958. However, as per
the Rajasthan Rules of Business, the department of Administrative
Reforms and Coordination, headed by the Chief Secretary of the
State is entrusted with the task of coordinating with other
administrative departments. In the cases like the one in hands,
when two delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are officers or
Secretaries of different departments, then, it is the Chief
Secretary or other competatnt authority of the Administrative
Reforms and Coordination Department alone, who can pass an
order under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958.
26. This court would hasten to add, that in such cases, issuance
of simple charge-sheet in the manner done is not sufficient. The
competent authority in the Office of Department of Administrative
Reforms and Coordination can either undertake the proceedings
itself or can pass an order specifying the authority which shall
function as the disciplinary authority for the common proceedings;
who shall be the disciplinary authority competent to impose
penalty specified in Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 and also mention
whether the procedure prescribed in Rules 16 and 17 of the CCA
Rules, 1958 is required to be followed or not in the proceedings to
be undertaken.
27. It is only after such an order being passed, an authority
appointed as disciplinary authority can proceed in the matter and
issue a combined charge-sheet to all such delinquents who are
involved in one case or common and interlaced irregularities,
against whom the State proposes to take common or joint
proceedings. Such disciplinary authority may (if so desired),
[2025:RJ-JD:1668] (11 of 11) [CW-16227/2024]
thereafter appoint an inquiry officer to conduct common and joint
inquiry.
28. As a consequence of the discussion foregoing, the present
writ petition is allowed; impugned charge-sheet dated 13.05.2024
qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.
29. Needless to observe that either the petitioner's disciplinary
authority in the Finance Department shall be free to recommend
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with
law (if not already done) or the Chief Secretary or the Secretary
in-charge of the Administrative Reforms and Co-ordination
Department shall suo-motu pass an order under Rule 18 of the
CCA Rules, 1958, appointing common disciplinary authority (if so
desired) and issue other directions as deemed expedient, as
provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958.
30. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
6-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
