HARBHJAN MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Harbhajan Meena has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 12.09.1996, by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, and order dated 21.01.1997, by which his appeal was partly allowed and instead he was awarded penalty of censure. Petitioner also challenged order dated 04.08.1997, by which his review petition was rejected by the Governor of the State. Further prayer has been made by petitioner that respondents be directed to convene review DPC and consider his case for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer against vacancies of the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, on the criteria of seniority-cummerit and merit alone, and promote him with effect from the date his juniors i.e. the respondents No.6 and 7, were promoted.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondent Department on 11.12.1980; a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules') was served upon him on 06.09.1993; petitioner filed reply thereto denying the charges. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Division- VII), was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who, in his enquiry report, found the charges proved, therefore, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 12.09.1996, awarded him penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed appeal, which was allowed in part and aforesaid penalty was substituted by penalty of censure. Review petition filed by petitioner against both aforesaid orders, was also rejected by the Governor of the State.

(3.) Shri S.N. Meena, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the CCA Rules. The enquiry officer has based his report on the earlier preliminary enquiry report. He held the petitioner guilty of negligence. The enquiry officer proposed the penalty of warning, which was outside of his jurisdiction. The appellate authority, though reduced the penalty, yet did not consider all arguments raised in appeal. The order of appellate authority as well as reviewing authority, thus, are liable to be set-aside. Petitioner was adjudged not suitable for promotion against vacancies of the year 1995-96 on account of pendency of disciplinary enquiry against him, whereas sealed cover procedure ought to have been invoked, which, as per the Government instructions, was not done by respondents. DPC again met on 10.01.1997 to recommend promotions against quota of the year 1996-97, but the petitioner was not promoted whereas many of his juniors were promoted, and reference in this regard is made to pleadings in Para 10 of writ petition. Such juniors were promoted against both type of vacancies required to be filled in on criteria of seniority-cum-merit as well as merit alone. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition may be allowed. Learned counsel for petitioner further argued that penalty of censure does not come in the way of promotion and, therefore, the case of petitioner should have been considered ignoring the penalty of censure.