KUNDAN SINGH JHALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been filed by Shri Kundan Singh Jhala whose writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated April 15, 1976. As the learned counsel for the appellant has confined this appeal on the question of punishment alone, we do not want to encumber this judgment by giving narration of the facts leading to this appeal in detail. We will only state those facts which are necessary for deciding the question that has been canvassed before us. 1. The following five charges were framed against the petitioner-appellant:- CHARGE I That the said Shri Kundan Singh Jhala while functioning as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota, has been charging penalty lesser than that prescribed under sections of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1961. A few instances have been given in item IV of statement of allegations. Such unlawful action on the part of the said Shri K. S. Jhala in the capacity of Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota has also resulted in loss of Government revenue. CHARGE II That the said Shri K. S. Jhala while functioning as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota, granted irregular exemption from payment of Tax. the exemptions were allowed in contravention of the provisions of law as also against departmental instructions issued from time to time This has resulted in considerable loss of Revenue to the Government. There was also lack of supervision over his office and subordinates as stated in Allegation No. 2. CHARGE III That the said Shri Kundan Singh Jhala while functioning as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota, allowed the issue of clearance certificate by unauthorised officials though tax dues are recorded against the particular vehicles in respect of which such clearance certificates have been issued as stated in Allegation No. 3 enclosed. Such unauthorised and irregular issue of tax clearance certificates has resulted in a huge loss of Government revenue. Moreover, office copies of such clearance certificates were also not maintained which is most objectionable. The said Shri K. S. Jhala did not take any action against the concerned officials, as indicated in the statement of allegations which is unbecoming of a gazetted and responsible officer. CHARGE IV That the said Shri Kundan Singh Jhala, did not take surrendered documents in his personal custody inspite of clear departmental instructions in this behalf and allowed these documents to remain with the clerks In some cases such documents were not found with the clerks although the record showed that such documents were surrendered. The details are given in the statement of allegations No. 4. This is a positive proof and deliberate ignoring of orders of higher competent authorities. CHARGE V That the said Shri K. S. Jhala while functioning as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota, allowed irregular actions on the part of his subordinate officials by not maintaining Temporary Permit Registers in respect of Public and Private Carriers which is a clear violation of rules and departmental instructions and leads of corruption as it cannot be ascertained whether all the permit fees have been accounted for as indicated in the statement of allegation No. 5. An Inquiry Officer was appointed vide inquiry report Ex. 14 dated November 29, 1965, the Inquiry Officer held charges Nos. 1 to 5 proved against the petitioner-appellant. Ultimately vide order Ex. 1 dated July 22, 1971 the State Government held that charges Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 are proved against the petitioner-appellant. This was so held after obtaining the opinion of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, The material part of the order Ex. 21 dated July 22, 1971 is as follows: - "after considering Shri Jhala's representation to show cause notice along with the advice of the Commission with reference to relevant record of the case, the Government, while accepting the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, has been pleased to order that : 1. the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect be imposed upon Shri K. S. Jhala;

(2.) FULL pay minus subsistence, if any already drawn, be allowed, to Shri Jhala for the period he remained under suspension; and

(3.) IN M. G. Jaya Ram Naidu's case (Supra) there were three charges. On the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar, the Vice-Chancellor found that petitioner in that case was guilty of three charges which had been framed against him and awarded the punishment of reduction to the grade of Senior Assistant from that of the Superintendent. By another order dated June 18, 1971, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at the minimum of the scale of Senior Assistant. It was also ordered that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, for a period of five years, from the date he reported to duty as Senior Assistant. The learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the writ petition filed by the petitioner (delinquent Officer) held that finding of third charge is vitiated. The question arose whether the punishment awarded in respect of three charges could be maintained. The learned Judge has observed as under:- "in the instant case, the University has awarded a single punishment in respect of three charges, of which the petitioner had been found guilty. On comparison, I find that the first two charges, to which Shri Shivappa referred, are not as grave as the third charge in respect of which the Registrar held the enquiry. Since I have come to the conclusion that the finding regarding the third charge is vitiated, it is not possible to uphold the punishment awarded in this case because it is not known what punishment the Vice Chancellor would have awarded to the petitioner if he had found the petitioner guilty of only two of the charges, which are comparatively of a minor character. Hence the enquiry proceedings held by the Registrar and the punishment awarded by the Vice Chancellor are set aside. . . " IN Zonal Manager's case (Supra) the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on composite charges. The learned Judge has observed as under- "it is settled law that if action can be supported by charges, other than the one found defective, the order cannot be interferred with by the High Court under Art. 226 unless the charges are composite. Where the charges are composite, it would not be proper to ignore the defective part of the charge to sustain the order because the punishing authority had taken all those factors into consideration while proposing the punishment. We reject the argument of Mr. Nanda that inspite of the failure of one charge, the order of punishment can be upheld. Whereas it is correct that under the statute, the punishment of dismissal can be imposed on the proof of even the last charge relating to the issuance of stationery alone, but it would be difficult to hold that the punishing authority would have imposed the punishment of dismissal on the proof of that charge alone. He may or he may not have so done and as such it would be that the punishment imposed is justified, when one of the charges against the respondent has failed for taking into account incredible evidence. IN this view of the matter the punishment imposed is not sustainable. " IN the case on hand the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect could be imposed on the proof of one or more charges. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of stoppage of three grade annual increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner-appellant on proof of four charges, namely, 1, 2, 4 and 5. Whether it would have imposed the punishment of with holding of three grade annual incremennts on proof of two charges, or not is a matter of conjecture. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the aforesaid punishment on account of the cumulative effect of the four charges having been proved against the petitioner. But this cannot be necessarily true that the same Disciplinary Authority might have imposed the punishment of withholding of three grade annual increments with cumulative effect on proof of charges Nos. 4 and 5, which as stated above, are not so grave or serious as charges Nos. 1 and 2 which have been held to have not been established against the petitioner-appellant. As one single punishment was imposed regarding the four charges (Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) and findings in respect of charges No. 1 and 2 have been reversed by the learned single Judge, the punishment so awarded stands negatived. We are, therefore, unhesitentingly of the opinion that when charges 1 and 2 have not been established against the petitioner-appellant, there is no justification in maintaining the punishment which was imposed upon the petitioner-appellant in respect of the aforesaid four charges.