LALA RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Lalit Sharma, aggrieved by the order Dt. 7.5.1996 by which penalty of reduction of his pay by five stages and retaining the same at the same level, till his retirement was awarded to him. Petitioner has also prayed for consequential benefits together with Interest @ 24% per annum. Petitioner was at the relevant time working as Agricultural Officer in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The dispute pertains to the period when he was posted on deputation on the post of Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tijara, District Alwar from 7.4.1982 to 9.8.1982 and a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served on the petitioner on 13.11.1984 for certain financial Irregularities. Nine witnesses were produced by the department, whereas petitioner apart from him, produced one Daulat Ram Jain as his witness. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted report on 9.3.1988 in which he found charges No. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 proved and charge No. 3 party proved and charge No. 5 not proved. The disciplinary authority accepting the finding of the enquiry officer imposed penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner vide order Dt. 3.7.1989. Petitioner then filed review petition before the reviewing authority i.e. His Excellency the Governor of the State. The reviewing authority by order Dt. 17.4.1993 allowed the review petition on the ground of non -supplying of copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and while quashing the order of penalty remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh decision after supplying copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. When the report was supplied, he submitted a detailed representation (Annexure -20) to the disciplinary authority The disciplinary authority by order Dt. 7.5.1996 (Annexure -21) imposed the penalty as referred to above.

(2.) SHRI Sandeep Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disciplinary authority has erred in law in disagreeing with the enquiry officer on the findings recorded by him and charge No. 3 and 5. Referring from the enquiry report at page 119 of the paper book (Annexure -18), learned counsel submitted that the enquiry officer found charge No. 3 only partly proved, whereas the disciplinary authority in his report at page 179 of paper book (Annexure -21) has recorded a finding to the effect that this stage is fully proved against the petitioner The disciplinary authority did not serve upon the petitioner any notice for disagreeing with the findings. Besides the learned counsel referring from, the enquiry report submitted that the charge against the petitioner was only to the effect that the Special Secretary cum Director Community Development and Panchayat Department vide his order Dt. 24.1.1979 directed that the Panchayat Samiti could spent 50% of the education cess for purchase of the stores/material for the schools and remaining 50% for maintenance and repair of the building. The Panchayat Samiti, Tijara has found Rs. 59,536.50 paisa on this head in the month of May 1982, out of which petitioner spent Rs. 58,812.51 paisa on purchase of store/material and in this connection alteration was made in the proposal No. 11 of the Panchayat Samiti Dt. 30.4.1982 and, therefore, petitioner was guilty of the altering the records of the Panchayat Samiti. Learned counsel however submitted that the enquiry officer did not find the later part of the charge proved that petitioner made alteration in the record, but the disciplinary authority in the order of penalty has even found this charge fully proved even without any notice or notice of dissent being served on the petitioner. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Similarly, learned counsel has referred to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on charge No. 5 at page 122 -125 of the paper book (Annexure -18) and argued that the enquiry officer did not find this charge proved. The charge was to the effect that there were disparities/differences between the rates of the stationer)' purchased as seen from the comparative chart, which shows that the rates quoted in the chart were different than those offered by the buyers. Three such Instances were given in the chart. The enquiry officer not find this charge proved, but the disciplinary authority at page 180 of his order (Annexure -21) has found this charge partly proved in the terms that the petitioner was guilty of supervisory negligence. It is argued that there was no charge of supervisory negligence and therefore such finding in absence of charge could not be recorded against the petitioner. Even otherwise if the disciplinary authority wanted to differ with the view of the enquiry officer, he was required to have served upon the petitioner a notice of disagreement and call for his comments. The principle of natural justice have thus been violated. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, : 2009 (1) Supreme 438, State Bank of India & Ors. v. K.R Narayanan Kutty, : AIR 2003 SC 1100 and Judgment of this Court in Gulab Chand v. State & Ors.,, 2011 (3) WLC (Raj.) 192.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the kind of penalty that has been imposed by the disciplinary authority is not envisaged in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 in proceedings under Rule 16, especially in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 can be imposed. Besides, two penalties have simultaneously been Imposed upon the petitioner and, therefore, it would tantamount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 16 (1) any one" of the penalties out of those specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 can be imposed and therefore two penalties cannot be simultaneously imposed. It is submitted that language of the Rules 16 of the Rules of 1958 is not so widely worded as would justify the imposition of penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner by five stages as also retaining of his pay at that level for rest of his service career.