AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging
the order dated 10.05.2005, whereby the penalty of censure has
been imposed on him.
The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was served with
a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 13
of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff)
Rules, 1953 along with statement of charge. It was alleged in the
statement of allegation that while the petitioner was working as
L.D.C. in criminal section, he remained negligent in discharging his
duty and failed to communicate the order dated 21.07.1997
passed by the High Court in S.B.Civil Criminal Misc. Petition
No.30/1997 to the trial court - Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Gangapurcity. It was alleged that according to the
order of the High Court, the trial court was directed to dispose of
the case within the stipulated period of two months. Thereafter, in
another S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.782/1997 (Ramphool Vs.
State of Rajasthan), the High Court vide order dated 10.11.1997
had observed that the earlier order passed on 21.01.1997 in
S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 was not complied with in
its true spirit by the trial court and consequently, High Court
ordered that copy of the order be placed before the Registrar to
make an enquiry in the service record of the concerned
Magistrate.
It was alleged that the petitioner was thoroughly negligent in
discharging of his duty and failed to communicate the order
passed by the High Court on 25.01.1997 and there was general
practice to communicate the order of the High Court immediately
to the lower court and this practice was given complete go-bye by
the petitioner, which hampered the judicial process. It was alleged
that in consequence of such act of the petitioner, the Judicial
Officer concerned suffered mental agony and torture. All above
acts amounted to negligent and dereliction of duty treating them
to a gross misconduct.
The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled
against him on 26.07.2013. The Disciplinary Authority appointed
Deputy Registrar (Admn.) as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer
conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary
Authority vide his letter dated 29.07.2004. Thereafter, the
Disciplinary Authority-Registrar (Admn.) imposed the penalty of
censure vide his order dated 10.05.2005, which is impugned in
the present petition.
The petitioner has pleaded that due to penalty imposed upon
him, the second selection grade was delayed and granted after
completion of period of 18 years w.e.f. 14.07.2005 vide order
dated 03.03.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following legal
submissions before this Court:
That the impugned order has been passed in most
mechanical manner without finding the petitioner guilty of
the alleged misconduct.
That there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner
at all as the alleged order passed by the High Court in
Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 dated 25.1.1997, did
not give any time bound direction as such to decide the
case and there was no direction to send the order of the
Court immediately.
That the alleged ingredients of misconduct of not sending
the order of High Court immediately, were not existing as
the charge-sheet itself shows that there was practice of
sending the file and as such, there was no rule or
established procedure that the clerk concerned was duty
bound to send the file immediately on receipt of order
when there was no specific direction in the order of High
Court to the trial court.
The Registrar (Admn.)-cum-Disciplinary Authority is not a
competent person to impose the penalty.
Per contra, Mr.N.K.Maloo, Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent submitted that impugned order has rightly been
passed and the Disciplinary Officer was lenient in imposing the
punishment.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned
the record.
Issue regarding the Disciplinary Authority has already been
decided by us vide order of even date in D.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.294/2007 (Murari Lal Gupta Vs. High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan & Anr.) and we are of the opinion that Registrar
(Admn.) is fully competent to impose the penalty as per Rule 12
of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff)
Rules, 1953 being a Disciplinary Authority duly empowered by the
Chief Justice.
So far as impugned penalty order is concerned, a bare
perusal of the said order reveals that Disciplinary Authority has
recorded a finding that mistake committed by the petitioner
appeared to be bonafide and no malafide has been attributed
against him. The bare perusal of the record/order dated
25.01.1997 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 also
shows that there was no direction to send the copy of the order
immediately to the court concerned and moreover, there was no
direction also that the criminal case was to be decided by the
court below within two months.
The allegation against the petitioner was not based on actual
facts obtaining at the time of issuance of charge-sheet. It cannot
be alleged that the petitioner has committed any misconduct by
not sending the file immediately to the trial court. In absence of
such direction, it could not have been presumed by the
Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was guilty of the
misconduct. The very foundation of issuing charge-sheet to the
petitioner was misconceived.
The Disciplinary Authority has also not applied its mind while
considering the entire record of the enquiry. The presumption
drawn by enquiry officer that the petitioner was duty bound to
communicate the order dated 25.01.1997 and he was guilty of not
conveying same to the trial court, even till after expiry of two
months, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties, the said
finding of the enquiry officer itself was without factual foundation
and contrary to record. In opinion of the Court, the penalty order
which has been passed against the petitioner is illegal and not
sustainable in eye of law. The Disciplinary Authority being a quasi-
judicial authority is required to consider the entire record of the
enquiry, including the reply of the delinquent and the enquiry
report. The plea of the petitioner has altogether not been
considered and he has made a scapegoat by punishing even with
minor penalty of censure.
The penalty of censure may be minor penalty but has its own
effect in the service career of an employee and he suffers in
method of promotion, grant of selection scale, etc. In the instant
case, the petitioner has suffered due to the penalty of censure as
he was deprived to get the selection grade on the completion of
18 years as his entitlement was deferred due to penalty of
censure.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The penalty order
dated 10.05.2005 is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled
for consequential benefit.