Years, R/o Laxmi Vilas, Murlipura, Karauli (Raj.) At present vs State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department Home (Legal), Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Prosecution Rajasthan, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director, Prosecution (Vigilance), Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) with the charge that he submitted D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13019/2023 before this Court without informing the department and impleaded the department as party respondent in the array of cause title. Counsel submits that such an act on the part of the petitioner was found to be a misconduct under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1971’). Counsel submits that several notices were issued to the petitioner (2 of 5) [CW-718/2025] by the then Presiding Officer for not submitting the case diary. Counsel submits that this fact was brought into the notice of the authority but no heed was paid by them, hence, under these circumstances, no option was left with him except to approach this Court by way of filing the aforesaid petition. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, he had also informed the Department on 03.07.2023. Counsel submits that aforesaid act of the petitioner does not amount to misconduct under the Rules of 1971, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 has been served upon the petitioner and he was called upon to answer the above charges but correctness of the allegations cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56, has held as under:- “26. In the case on hand, article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge were completed: i) in an irregular manner, ii) in undue haste, and iii) apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessee concerned. (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, the allegation of conferring undue favour is very much there unlike Civil Appeal No.560/91. If that be so, certainly disciplinary (3 of 5) [CW-718/2025] action is warranted. This Court had occasion to examine the position. In Union of India v. A. N. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124 to which one of us (Mohan, J.) was a party, it was held as under (Paras 7 and 8 of AIR): "It was urged before us by learned counsel for the respondent that as the respondent was performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in making the assessment orders in question even if his actions were wrong they could be corrected in an appeal or in revision and no disciplinary proceedings could be taken regarding such actions. In our view, an argument that no disciplinary action can be taken in regard to actions taken or purported to be done in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is not correct. It is true that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceeding should be taken only after great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions and only if the circumstances so warrant. The Initiation of such proceedings. it is true, is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and also if lightly taken likely to undermine his independence. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or purported to discharge his functions. But it Is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability, namely a desire to oblige himself or unduly favour one of the parties or an improper motive there is no reason why disciplinary action should not be taken." 27. This dictum fully supports the stand of the appellant. There is a great reason and justice for holding in such cases that the disciplinary action could be taken. It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice that it must be free from bias of any kind. 28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently (4 of 5) [CW-718/2025] or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases: i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity good faith or devotion to duty; ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant; iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.”

4. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra: reported in (2010) 13 SCC 311 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that facts stated in the charges are erroneous for the reason that finding correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (5 of 5) [CW-718/2025]

5. Considering the above proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of K.K. Dhawan (Supra) and Sangram Keshari Misra (Supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit reply to the aforesaid charge and it is expected from the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders after taking into account the defence taken by the petitioner in the aforesaid reply without being prejudice by the order passed by this Court. It is also expected from the Disciplinary Authority to expedite the proceedings of the domestic enquiry and complete the same expeditiously as early as possible.

6. The present writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly.

7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Ashu/29 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J