MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 30. 11. 92 with a prayer that the order dated July 14, 1992 (annex. 2) may be quashed and set aside to the extent it excludes the petitioner from promotion on the post of Deputy Jailor and it was further prayed that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Jailor be considered avoiding punishment of censure imposed upon him by order dtd. 5. 4. 91.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) The petitioner entered the services of respondents being appointed as Warden with effect from 25. 10. 1960. At the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was posted at Central Jail, Udaipur. ii) The petitioner was promoted as Head Warden with effect from 2. 2. 1970. Though the petitioner was holding the post of Head Warden, he was discharging the duties of clerk at Central Jail, Udaipur. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted vide order dated. 6. 7. 1976 passed by the respondent No. 2 as Assistant Jailor at the sub-jail, Bheem. The promotion of the petitioner was on temporary basis. iii) Vide order dated 29. 8. 1984, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant jailor on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee against the vacancies of 1983-84 and 1984-85. The petitioner was confirmed on the aforesaid post on completion of 1 years' service on probation with effect from 29. 08. 1985. iv) The respondent No. 2 issued a final seniority list (Annex. 1) pertaining to the Assistant Jailor as on 18. 4. 92, vide order dtd. 16. 5. 92. In the aforesaid seniority list, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 23. v) The respondent No. 2 passed an order dtd. 14. 7. 92 (Annex. 2) by which the petitioner was not promoted to the post of dy. Jailor, but on the contrary, 5 persons from general quota who were junior to the petitioner were promoted and this order has been challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. vi) The petitioner submitted various representations about his supersession and later on the was told that since he was given punishment of censure vide order dtd. 5. 4. 91 in an enquiry held under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958), therefore, he was not given promotion. vii) A memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner is that punishment of censure is very minor punishment and on this ground alone, his seniority cannot be over-looked and thus impugned order dated. 14. 7. 72 (Annex. 2) to the extent it excludes the petitioner from promotion on the post of Deputy Jailor be quashed and he should be given promotion and the punishment of censure imposed on him vide order dtd. 5. 4. 91 should be over-looked.

(3.) CENSURE in my opinion is a penalty imposed after holding departmental enquiry for all purposes. CENSURE is a sort of formal ad is minimum minor penalty under the Rules of 1958 to be imposed for an act of commission or omission which is blameworthy.