UMED SINGH RANAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE very question, which has cropped up in the instant petition, is whether penalty of withholding of annual grade increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty or major penalty. Scorning the facts in detail, the facts in brevity giving rise to this petition are that while working as Assistant Manager at Hotel Shilpi, Ranakpur, under Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short, "RTDC"), the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action for his alleged omissions and commissions. As a consequence of subjecting the petitioner to the disciplinary action, a memorandum and charge -sheet dated 07.09.2001 was served on him containing inter -alia four charges under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short, "Rules 1980"). The charge -sheet aforesaid was replied by the petitioner denying the charges. Although memorandum and charge -sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, which envisages procedure for major penalty but to petitioner's dismay the competent authority, on receipt of his reply/explanation, has resorted to Rule 10 of the Rules 1980 which prescribes procedure for imposition of minor penalty, and passed the impugned punishment order dated 12.06.2001, whereby the petitioner was visited with punishment of withholding of two annual increment grades with cumulative effect. 1. Being aggrieved from the order of punishment dated 12.06.2001, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the efforts of the petitioner proved abortive and the Appellate Authority while concurring with the decision of the disciplinary authority, dismissed his appeal by its order dated 13.12.2002.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sodha, has argued that when the charge -sheet was served on petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980, it was desirable from the respondents to conduct a full fledged disciplinary enquiry in strict adherence of the procedure provided therein. Learned counsel submits that by not following procedure provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980, the disciplinary authority has flagrantly violated Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, and therefore, the impugned punishment order is not sustainable. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980 deals with nature of penalties, which are classified as minor penalties and major penalties:

(3.) THE legal position on the subject is no more res - integra and the same has also been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Krishna Dutta Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in [1987(1) RLR 346]. The Division Bench, while dealing with the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments, with cumulative effect has found that it is a major penalty within the four corners of Rule 14 of the Rules 1958, and therefore, before imposing the said penalty, it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure provided under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The Division Bench made following observations in para 10 of the verdict: -