MAHARAJ PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Engineering Subordinate at Kama in the year 1976 was served with a charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules) on 18. 5. 1976 on the allegations mentioned therein. THEre were total 10 persons who were issued the identical charge-sheet. On 11. 3. 1986, the petitioner and other persons were punished by stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect by converting the charge-sheet under rule 17 of the Rules for imposing minor punishment. This action was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2137/87 and the order was setaside. He was served another charge-sheet identical to the previous one on 9. 12. 1988 under Rule 17 of the Rules vide Annexure-1 which was replied to. He was punished on 27. 2. 1993 with a punishment of stoppage of one grade increment, without cumulative effect vide Annexure-5. THE incident related to the year 1969-70, whereas the charge-sheet is said to have been given after a period of 18 years in the year 1988. THE petitioner challenges the order Annexure-5 dated 27. 2. 1993 on the ground that it is not a speaking order and no reasons have been given. It is also one of the grounds that the other co-accused persons have been either given the less punishment or even have been exonerated on the appeal having been filed. Example of one Jagdish Gehlot has been so cited. It is further submitted that the findings are perverse on the grounds that it was admitted fact that it was difficult to make the measurement in the circumstances and there was likelihood of small mistakes in measurements.

(2.) PER contra in the reply it is submitted that it is not necessary to give reasons in the order as the purposes are required to be given only to commensurate with the quantum of punishment. It is further submitted that it is not at all necessary to give reasoned order for the slightest punishment.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure-5 is quashed. THE petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which might have accrued to him, had the order Annexure-5 not been passed. No costs. .