BENCH AT JAIPUR vs State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Director, Pension and Pensionary Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. H.V. Nandwana For Respondent(s) Mr. Yash V. Nandwana : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC Mr. Deepak Sharma for Mr. Sharad Joshi, AGC Mr. Rahul Verma for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the impugned order dated

15.03.2018 passed by the respondents under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958) by which the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner faced departmental proceedings pursuant to a charge-sheet [2025:RJ-JP:12128] (2 of 5) [CW-18967/2018] served upon him with the charge that he was a witness in an anti- corruption case where he did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. Counsel submits that not supporting the case of prosecution does not amount to any mis-conduct which warrants any disciplinary action. Counsel submits that the charge- sheet could not have been issued to the petitioner on this count alone and the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.K. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2009(3) WLC 441. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was a material witness in a criminal case, filed against the accused, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act of 1988’) and the petitioner has not supported the version of prosecution, and as such he was declared hostile. Counsel submits that such act/action on the part of the petitioner amounts to mis-conduct which warranted disciplinary action to be initiated against him and accordingly, charge-sheet was served upon him and in the department proceedings he was held guilty for the above mis-conduct. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:12128] (3 of 5) [CW-18967/2018]

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was a witness in a criminal case lodged against the accused under the provisions of the Act of 1988. During the course of trial, when the statements of the petitioner were recorded, before the competent court, he has not supported the version of prosecution and was declared as hostile. For the aforesaid act of the petitioner, a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him and the departmental proceedings were initiated against him. When the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved against the petitioner, a disagreement note was prepared and a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice and thereafter, the impugned punishment order has been passed against him by the disciplinary authority whereby a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is that whether not supporting the case of prosecution amounts to any mis-conduct on the part of the petitioner?

7. The aforesaid issue involved in this petition is no more res integra and the same has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.K. Bansal (supra), wherein a specific observation has been made by this Court that mere error of judgment and any contradiction in the statements given before the Police and the Court, consequential declaration as hostile witness will not constitute misconduct unless the Court declares the witness as untrustworthy and some adverse comments are made therein and on this count alone charge-sheet against the delinquent employee of the said case was quashed by this Court, [2025:RJ-JP:12128] (4 of 5) [CW-18967/2018] while making observations in Para Nos. 15 to 19, which read as under: “15.In view of the aforesaid consideration of submissions as well as citations on the subject, my answer to the questions as follows: Question No.1

16.“Misconduct” means misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake, did not constitute such misconduct. The test must always be whether in addition to the failure to do the duty, partial or entire, which had happened, there had also been a failure to act honestly and reasonably. Question No.2

17.Mere error of judgment and any contradiction in the statements given before the police and the Court, consequential declaration as hostile witness will not constitute misconduct unless the Court declares the witness as untrustworthy and some adverse comments are made therein. 18. Having considered the pleadings, submissions and the aforesaid citations given in the preceding paras, I am of the view that in the present case, mere declaration of the petitioner as hostile witness will not constitute misconduct and no charge is made out against him. 19.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the charge- sheet dated 30.05.2008 is quashed. In case any promotion(s) are made, then case of the petitioner will also be considered/reconsidered and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three months.”

8. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and that the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.K. Bansal (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and order impugned dated 15.03.2018 passed by the respondents stands quashed and set aside.

10. The respondents are directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:12128] (5 of 5) [CW-18967/2018]

11. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. GARIMA /175 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J