Panchayat Samiti Chauraha, Gurjar Colony, Bayana, at present v. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Revenue

Judgment

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

2. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Group-1) Department,

4. State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Commissioner, Settlement, Viman Bhawan, Gopalbari, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Satyapal Poshwal with Mr. Bhanwer Kumar, Mr. Rajan Meena & Ms. Abhilasha Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary on behalf of Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025

1. Feeling aggrieved by penalty order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer as well as order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was holding the post of Surveyor in Revenue Department. On 19.06.1998, he was served [2025:RJ-JP:33130] (2 of 6) [CW-12431/2009] with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 containing as many as three charges. Pursuant to aforesaid charges, inquiry was conducted and after conducting inquiry vide order dated

05.05.2007, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner.

3. Being dissatisfied with the penalty of compulsory retirement, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 before the State Government. It is stated that in the appeal the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority was found to be improper and hence, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh order after providing reasons as per Para 13 of appellate order dated 08.10.2007.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed fresh order dated

09.01.2008 whereby, the penalty of compulsory retirement earlier imposed upon the petitioner was modified and was reduced to penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect.

5. The petitioner was still dissatisfied with order dated

09.01.2008 and hence, he again preferred an appeal before the State Government under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 in which, as per petitioner, grounds were raised for pointing out serious defects in the inquiry proceedings as well as lack of application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been decided by the State Government vide order dated 13.04.2009 whereby, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and [2025:RJ-JP:33130] (3 of 6) [CW-12431/2009] without giving any finding whatsoever over the grounds raised by him in memo of appeal, simply by stating that no new fact for holding the inquiry report as incorrect has been placed on record and the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the instant case, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet containing serious charges and even while re-examining the order of penalty pursuant to earlier order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has been found guilty of committing serious irregularities and carrying out revenue applications without there being any verification. Under these circumstances, the penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner was quite justified and not disproportionate. It has also been submitted that the Appellate Authority, while confirming with the decision of Disciplinary Authority is not required to pass a reasoned order and such reasoned order is required to be passed only in the cases, where the order is reversed by the Appellate Authority.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the record.

8. It would be relevant to refer Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the instant writ petition, which reads as under:- "30. Consideration of appeals : (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provision of rule 13 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:33130] (4 of 6) [CW-12431/2009] (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been compiled with and if not, whether such non–compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of Justice; (b) whether the facts on which the order was passed has been established; (c) whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order; and (d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate, [and after giving a personal hearing to Government Servant to explain his case, if he desires so,] and after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass order : (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: Provided that : (i) the appellate authority shall not impose any enhance penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose. (ii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and [(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority propose to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 and an inquiry under rule 16 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 18, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit.]"

9. It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the disciplinary matter is very very limited and the Writ Court can interfere only in the cases where there appears to be flagrant violation of the Rules, which has caused prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner delinquent. [2025:RJ-JP:33130] (5 of 6) [CW-12431/2009]

10. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority passed impugned order dated 13.04.2009 in following manner:- **Jh gfjjke xqtZj] Hkw ekid }kjk v/;{k jktLo eaMy vtesj ds vkns'k dzekad ia- 11 ¼5½ fotk@jke@98@ fnukad 09-01-2008 ds fo:) lh-lh-,- fu;eksa ds fu;e 23 ds varxZr vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA v/;{k jktLo e.My vtesj us vius viyk/khu vkns'k }kjk vihykaV dh nks okf"kZd osru o`f);ka lap;h izHkko ls jksdus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;kA mijksDr tkap esa v/;{k jktLo e.My vtesj }kjk izFker% fnukad 05-05-2007 dks vihykaV dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;kA vihykaV us bldh vihy jkT; ljdkj ds le{k izLrqr dhA jkT; ljdkj }kjk vius vkns'k dzekad i- 6 ¼36½ jkt&1@07 fnukad 08-10-2007 }kjk vihy Lohdkj dj iqu% fu.kZ; gsrq jktLo e.My dks izsf"kr fd;kA jktLo e.My vtesj }kjk izdj.k esa iqu% fu.kZ; ysrs gq, nks okf"kZd osru o`f) lap;h izHkko ls jksdus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;kA mijksDr vkns'k ds fo:) vihykaV }kjk vihy izLrqr dh xbZA mDr vihy izLrqr gksus ij vihykaV dks lquk x;k ,oa fjdkWMZ ryc fd;k x;kA tkap fjiksVZ dk vihykaV ds eheks vkWQ vihy ds lkFk v/;;u fd;k x;kA vihykaV us dksbZ ,slk u;k rF; izLrqr ugha fd;k ftlls tkap fjiksVZ dks xyr Bgjk;k tk ldsA vihykaV dks orZeku izdj.k esa tks la'kksf/kr n.M fn;k x;k og mlds d`R; ds lekuqikfrd gSA vr% vihy vihykaV lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA**

11. The aforesaid order would reflect that in first two paras simply the past history has been recorded and in last para only it has been stated that no new fact for holding the inquiry report as [2025:RJ-JP:33130] (6 of 6) [CW-12431/2009] defective has been placed by the petitioner and the modified penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not disproportionate.

12. This Court finds that there is no consideration whatsoever of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal (Annex.-5). As per, Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal is under legal obligation to consider the grounds raised in appeal in the light of points of consideration prescribed under Rule 30(2)(a) to (d) and to give its finding over such points of consideration in the appellate order. Thus, clearly the order dated 13.04.2009 has been passed by the respondent No.2 in manifest defiance of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. Therefore, order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal (Annex.-5) and to decide the appeal by speaking order.

14. Ordered accordingly. DIVYA /4 (ANAND SHARMA),J