HEERA BHARTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief fact which led to filing of the aforesaid writ petition are as under:

(2.) While the petitioner was posted as Patwari, Sankarna, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 8/2/1973. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge sheet Annex. 2 alongwith details of charges Annex. 3, Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore was appointed Enquiry Officer by the Collector (Revenue) Jalore, who was Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 17.9.73. After Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice against proposed penalty of dismissal. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply Annex. 8 and also demanded personal heating. The Disciplinary Authority who was Collector (Revenue), Jalore, respondent No. 3, passed the orders Ex. 9 & 10 dated 20th April 1976 imposing penalty of dismissal. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which too, was dismissed vide order dated 24/4OF 1978 Annex. 12. The petitioner also preferred a second appeal before the State Government Annex. 12 and that was dismissed on the ground that since amendment in Rule 23(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.& A) Rules, 1958 with effect from 9/10/1974, the second appeal is not maintainable. Hence the above petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority being different from the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have recorded his own conclusions on each charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner and his conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of petitioner in respect of any charge, should have been supported by reasons by a perusal of the impugned orders Ex. 9 & 10 clearly shows that it is not at all a speaking order. It is submitted by Mr. Mridul that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty is a quasi judicial order in nature and the order must inform of the reasons on which it is based but the perusal of the order shows that the order does not conform to the fundamental norm of a quasi judicial nature so as to be called as a speaking one. The Disciplinary Authority is under an obligation to examine objectively the submissions contained in the representation made against show cause notice about proposed punishment. But in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has not even referred to various submissions contained in the reply submitted by the petitioner which shows that the Collector has not considered the said reply of the petitioner and the order has been passed without application of mind. Learned Counsel places reliances in this respect on two decisions of this Court in Phool Chand v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and in Hari Narain v. Union of India and Ors., 1980 WLN(UC) 311 and 546 respectively.