Banshi Lal Mundra vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner working as Revenue Inspector at the relevant point of time, has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned penalty order in the disciplinary action taken against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''Rules of 1958'') vide the impugned order (Annex. 30) dated 19.08.1995, which has been upheld by the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner vide the impugned order (Annex. 32) dated 17.12.1996. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is the reduction of pension to the extent of 1/3rd payable to him.

The charge against the petitioner, which has been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, was that he was given some advance for payments to various labourers on the Muster-Roll of the Department in Drought Relief Work at of Rs. 20,440/- on 24.07.1992 and by showing more payment i.e. in place of due as Rs. 13,112/-, a sum of Rs. 15,536/- was shown to have been paid to the labourers and upon the said mistake pointed out, he deposited back the said alleged excess amount of Rs. 2,424/- on 24.09.1992 and for such defalcation, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and upon charges having been found proved, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, District Collector imposed the aforesaid impugned penalty which has been upheld by the appellant court and, therefore, the present writ petition assailing these orders was filed in this Court on 11.03.1997.

Upon issuance of the notices, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and contested the same.

Mr. P.S. Chundawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the first instance before the Tehsildar himself vide Annex. 6 dated 24.09.1992 was not at all considered by any of the authorities below, wherein it was clearly stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was on medical leave from 03.08.1992 till 23.08.1992 and, therefore, the advance disbursed to him and the aforesaid sum of Rs. 20,440/- was handed over to one Mr. Vardhi Singh, who was LDC/Cashier at the relevant point of time, who paid the said amounts to the labourers on Muster-Roll and upon resuming his duties, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that some alleged excess payments have been made to the labourers and, therefore, such excess sum of Rs. 2,424/- was deposited by the petitioner through said LDC, Mr. Vardhi Singh. He further stated that the said LDC, Mr. Vardhi Singh was also proceeded against in the disciplinary action by the respondent-Revenue Department, but he has been saddled only with a minor penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, whereas the present petitioner, who was not directly responsible for said alleged excess amount paid to the labourers, a disproportionately high penalty of stoppage of pension to the extent of 1/3rd pension has been imposed by the respondent-District Collector and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Dr. Pratistha Dave, learned for the respondents submits that both the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioner was responsible for the said payment to the labourers and the excess payment was made on over-writing/cuttings made in the concerned Muter Roll and, therefore, the petitioner has been rightly held guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed upon him is not a disproportionate penalty. She, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Annex. 30 dated 19.08.1995, does not indicate that the explanation furnished by the petitioner has been considered at all either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. The said explanation was furnished in the first instance in response to the notice in this regard was given by the Tehsildar. The petitioner also stated before the higher authorities that the excess amount may not be advanced to him for payment to labourers on Muster Roll and deposited the said excess sum of Rs. 2,424/- was also made by the concerned LDC, namely, Mr. Vardhi Singh only, to whom the said advance was handed over when the petitioner was on medical leave for a period of 20 days and when he reported back for duty, upon the said alleged excess amount paid to labourers was brought to his notice, he asked the said LDC to deposit back the said amount under his signatures on the Challan concerned and thus the amount in question was deposited back in the Revenue Department. Thus there was neither any loss of revenue to the State caused by the petitioner, nor the explanation furnished by the petitioner appears to be false, as the fact of his being on medical leave during the said period, has not been disputed by the respondent Department in their reply.

There appears to be no good reason also for imposing only a minor penalty against the directly responsible person i.e. the LDC (Mr. Vardhi Singh) of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, whereas for the petitioner, the pension payable to the petitioner has been disproportionately reduced to the extent of 1/3rd of the pension, even if the charge of supervisory negligence for a moment is assumed to have rightly proved as held by the Enquiry Officer. There has been thus a clear breach of principles of natural justice, since the explanation furnished by the petitioner which appears to be plausible, has not been considered by the authorities below.

Consequently, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The same is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned penalty order (Annex. 30) dated 19.08.1995 and the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner dated 17.12.1996 (Annex. 32), are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.