Mustkeen Khan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—This intra-Court appeal arises from the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 14.02.2000 upholding the order dt. 26.05.1984 of the disciplinary authority initiating penalty of removal from service after holding disciplinary enquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and so also the orders dt. 29.07.1984 & 16.06.1986 of the appellate/reviewing authority dismissing the appeal/ review preferred by the appellant. As informed to this Court, charges No. 1, 2, 5 & 6, were found proved against the appellant-delinquent and the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt. 26.05.1984 and that came to be upheld in the appeal/review by the revisional/reviewing authority as well.

Counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the special appeal, the delinquent died on 15.06.2008 and his legal representatives were brought on record and in view of the changes in circumstances, the relief regarding reinstatement is otherwise not possible. However, submits that since the delinquent served for at least 17 years while the penalty of removal from service was inflicted, the grievance of the legal representatives of the delinquent is for extending benefit as provided under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 taking note of the poor economic conditions of the legal representatives of the deceased delinquent and prayed that the respondent-State may at least be directed to examine in the light of Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996.

It has been informed that as regards the question, which was initially raised by the delinquent regarding competence of the disciplinary authority, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Raj & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 331/1995) & connected petitions, decided on 20.09.2012 has held that the Superintendent of Police is the authority competent for inflicting major penalty including dismissal/removal from service. As such, the question regarding competence of the Superintendent of Police inflicting major penalty upon the delinquent does not remain res-integra any further.

Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG, counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges are of grave nature and found proved against the delinquent after holding disciplinary inquiry and the disciplinary authority on the said premise inflicted major penalty of removal from service which remained upheld in appeal/review, in these facts and circumstances, the case of the delinquent does not call upon to examine the case of legal representatives under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996.

We have gone through the order of the ld. Single Judge and find that in the instant case opportunity of hearing was afforded to the delinquent and it is not the case of the appellant that there was violation of the principles of natural justice at any stage in relation to the procedure which was followed by the disciplinary authority while exercising its power under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1958.

As regards the later submission made regarding exercise of Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996, suffice it to say that ordinarily the incumbents, who are inflicted with major penalty of dismissal/removal from service, their Pensionary benefits are withheld/forfeited. However, looking to the nature of allegations against the delinquent in the instant case, in our opinion, are of gross misconduct which he committed in discharge of his duties and once such charges have been finally found to be proved and made a basis by the disciplinary authority inflicting the major penalty upon the delinquent, we do not find any justification even directing the State Government to consider the grievance of the legal representatives of the delinquent, under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996. Consequently, the special appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.