All resident of Bhagori, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur v. State of Rajasthan, through Director, Gramin Vikas And

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through Director, Gramin Vikas And

3. Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bayana, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr.Timan Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms.Sara Parveen for Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 Reportable

1. A challenge has been made to the impugned order dated

27.07.2007 passed by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bayana, by which a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (2 of 7) [CW-390/2008] (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the CCA Rules, 1958”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 against which he submitted a reply, but without holding any enquiry as contemplated under the CCA Rules, 1958, straightaway, the impugned penalty order has been passed, which has violated the principles of natural justice, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, she is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

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

5. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was issued to the petitioner against which he submitted his reply, but without conducting the process of enquiry as provided under the CCA Rules, 1958 and simply on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed and minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

6. The CCA Rules, 1958 have been enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The proviso to Article 309 is the source of Rule making power to regulate the recruitment and conditions of the services of [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (3 of 7) [CW-390/2008] the persons appointed to services and post connected with the affairs of the State. Chapter V of these Rules deals with discipline and the penalties imposed upon the delinquent employees who are found guilty of any misconduct.

7. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958 deals with the nature of penalties and the same read as under:- “14. Nature of Penalties.–The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :– (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order ; (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post; or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension ; (vi) removal from service which shall ordinarily not be a disqualification for further employment ; (vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment. Explanation :– (1) The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the rule:– (i) withholding of increments of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (4 of 7) [CW-390/2008] governing the Service or post or the terms of his appointment; (ii) stoppage of Government servant at the efficiency bar in the time scale on the ground of hid unfitness to cross the bar ; (iii) non–promotion whether in a substantive or officiating capacity of Government servant, after consideration of his case, to a Service, Grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible ; (iv) reversion to a lower service, grade or post of a Government servant officiating in a higher service grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher Service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct ; (v) reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of a Government servant appointed on probation to another service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation ; (vi) compulsory retirement of Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement ; (vii) termination of the services – (a) of a Government servant appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation ; or (b) of a temporary Government servant appointed otherwise then under contract on the expiration of the period of appointment; [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (5 of 7) [CW-390/2008] (c) of a Government servant under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement; (d) of a Government servant in the services of any of the integrating units of Rajasthan, on non– selection or non–absorption for appointment in any of the services of the integrated State of Rajasthan in accordance with the integration rules. Explanation:– (2) The discharge of a person appointed on an ad– hoc or provisional basis to any of the posts in the integrated setup of Rajasthan Services otherwise than for reasons of non–selection or non– absorption to any such services or posts in accordance with the integrated rules, shall amount to removal or dismissal as the case may be. Note–The disqualification for further employment on account of dismissal under Rule 14 (vii) can only be waived by the Government if the merits of an individual case so justify.”

8. Perusal of this Rule indicates that wide discretionary powers have been bestowed upon the Disciplinary Authority to punish the delinquent employee with regard his/her misconduct. The discretion of the punishing authority should be sound, legal, regular, guided by the law and governed by Rule. It should not be arbitrary, vague and forceful and must not be governed by rumors. The Rule provides that “good and sufficient reasons” should be recorded on the basis of which a penalty has been imposed. When the Disciplinary Authority adopts a casual approach while passing a punishment order, it does not amount to sufficient compliance of this provision. The phrase “good and [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (6 of 7) [CW-390/2008] sufficient reasons” confers a wide discretion on the Disciplinary Authority to determine the gravity and nature of misdemeanor. What amounts to ‘good and sufficient reasons’ is left to the unfettered and unguided discretion of the punishing authority.

9. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958 deals with the nature of penalties which includes withholding of increments or promotion. Likewise, Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 deals with the procedure for imposing a major penalty and in the similar way, Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 deals with the procedure of imposing minor penalties. Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 lays down that no order imposing of any penalty specified in Clauses I & II of the Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958 shall be passed except after holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules,

10. The order of punishment which is passed in quasi-judicial proceedings must contain some reasons. Mere recording of conclusions is not sufficient for proper compliance of the requirement of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Merely recording a single line conclusion that after going through the record, the charges levelled against the delinquent official are fully proved, is not sufficient. The order must contain reasons, which could show application of mind and which could disclose mental application of the competent authority to the contents of the enquiry report and connected record. Apart from this, points raised by the delinquent official in the representation must be considered by the competent authority, [2025:RJ-JP:3927] (7 of 7) [CW-390/2008] and good and cogent reasons must be recorded as to why they were not being acted upon.

11. Herein the instant case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. The impugned order has been passed in a casual manner without holding any enquiry against the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned penalty order is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

12. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after holding enquiry against the petitioner as per the procedure contained under the CCA Rules, 1958.

13. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /66 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J