SHOKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO question correctness of the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sirohi, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) BY the order aforesaid, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. This court while admitting the writ petition under the order dated 16.08.2012 stayed effect and operation of the order impugned. No reply to the writ petition has been filed so far despite service. However, looking to narrow amplitude of the controversy involved in this petition for writ, I am deciding the same without further waiting for the reply to the writ petition on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 06.03.2012 has been passed by the disciplinary authority in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 to impose a major penalty. It is asserted that after issuing the memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, the disciplinary authority, if was not satisfied with the explanation submitted, then should have proceeded with regular enquiry at its own or by appointing a regular enquiry officer and a regular enquiry should have been conducted, but in the instant matter, the disciplinary authority without proceeding with regular enquiry passed the order impugned by placing reliance upon the report given by the preliminary enquiry officer. The report given by the preliminary enquiry officer was foundation for framing definite charges, but that has been used by the disciplinary authority to award punishment without conducting a regular enquiry.