Satya Narayan and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

The petitioners Satya Narayan and Om Prakash filed the above writ petitions separately to challenge the common penalty order passed by the respondent Director Local Self Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect and withholding the full salary for the period in which they remained under suspension.

As per the facts of the case, in the year 1997 when the petitioners were working on the post of Revenue Officer in the Municipal Board, Shahpura they were charge-sheeted vide charge memo dated 27.8.1997 respectively under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. In the charge-sheet 3 charges were levelled against them, which reads as under:-

After filing reply, the petitioners participated in the inquiry. On completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer gave its final report vide communication dated 14.6.2000 to the disciplinary authorities in which out of 3 charges in charges Nos. 2 and 3 the inquiry officer held that charges are not proved against the petitioners, however, for charge No. 1 the inquiry officer held them guilty for supervisory negligence. After submitting the inquiry report the respondents supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and upon filing representation, the Director, Local Bodies passed an order of penalty against the petitioners vide order 22.2.2011 whereby aforesaid penalty was imposed.

In these petitions the petitioners are challenging validity of the order of penalty.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the inquiry officer held that charges are not proved then there is no question to punish the petitioners for alleged charge of supervisory negligence under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. The petitioners were suspended in connection with the aforesaid charge-sheet on 10.3.1997 and reinstated in service during the pendency of inquiry in the month of Oct., 1997 but ultimately, the penalty was imposed against them for withholding increment without cumulative effect and to forfeit full salary for the period in which they were under suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per finding given by the inquiry officer none of the charges levelled against them were proved by the prosecution. More so, the lapses of subordinates were detected by the petitioners, which is evident from the finding given by the inquiry officer, therefore, the order of punishment passed against the petitioners have no foundation to stand in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that charge of supervisory negligence is not proved but only on presumption some observations are made by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report for the charge No. 1, therefore, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment without application of mind withhold one grade increment without cumulative effect and for forfeiting the fully salary for the period the petitioners remained under suspension. According to petitioners, it is a case in which the disciplinary authority has acted contrary to the finding charges are not proved in the inquiry.

Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it was the duty of the revenue officer to perform its supervisory duty but both the petitioners failed to perform their duties, therefore, financial loss is suffered by the Municipal Board, Shahpura and after considering the entire facts and findings given in the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has rightly passed an order for imposing punishment against the petitioners in which there is no illegality. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that due to supervisory negligence on the part of the petitioners their subordinates committed misconduct whereby the financial loss occurred, therefore, no interference is called for in this petition to quash the order of punishment dated 22.2.2001.

After considering the arguments and the documents annexed with the writ petition, it emerges from the facts that in the inquiry report following finding is given by the inquiry officer for charge No. 1, which reads as under:-

And for charge Nos. 2 and 3 the inquiry officer gave its finding that both charges are not proved by the prosecution but unfortunately in the operative part of the inquiry following assertions are made in the finding by the inquiry officer which reads as under:-

Meaning thereby the inquiry officer opined that in the totality of facts it is a case of supervisory negligence, but this court cannot loose sight of the fact that all the financial irregularities were brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the petitioners, therefore, in my opinion, the punishment awarded to the petitioners is excessive punishment because although the misconduct was committed by the revenue inspectors and subordinate officers of Municipal Board but the petitioners who were working on the post of Revenue Inspector did not detect the financial irregularity in time. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the order of penalty of withholding of one grade incumbent and forfeiture of salary for the suspension period is excessive in view of finding given by the inquiry officer.

Consequently, both the writ petitions are partly allowed and the punishment awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced from withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect and forfeiting the salary of suspension period to the punishment of censure with all consequential benefits.