RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Head Constable with the Rajasthan Police at Reserved Police Line, Hanumangarh, was subjected to a disciplinary action under a memorandum dated 27.07.2007 issued by the disciplinary authority as per the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). The disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner passed an order dated 17.08.2007 imposing a penalty of censure upon him. The Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, who happens to be the appellate authority, while exercising powers under the proviso to Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, vide a notice dated 11.09.2007, sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why the penalty imposed be not enhanced. A reply to the same was given by the delinquent employee with assertion that as a matter of fact, no misconduct was committed by him, as such even the penalty imposed deserves to be quashed. The appellate authority vide order dated 03.04.2008 while affirming the finding given by the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Suffice to mention that the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order imposing penalty. Being aggrieved by the order enhancing the penalty and the order rejecting appeal, this petition for writ is preferred. At the threshold, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority and as such he confines his argument to the extent of challenge given to the order passed by the appellate authority exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules 1958. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority while exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 is required to provide adequate reasons for enhancing the penalty, but in the instant matter, enhancement of penalty is not substantiated by sufficient reasons.

(2.) While meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, there is no requirement to provide reasons for enhancing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. In alternative, it is also submitted that the order Annex. 4 dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner contains sufficient reasons for enhancement of the penalty. It is submitted that the petitioner was found guilty for a serious misconduct and therefore, the minimum punishment was not commensurating to his delinquency, thus, the appellate authority awarded a suitable penalty to the petitioner.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.