MANOHARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the State Government dated December 5, 1969 modifying the order of the Inspector of School, Alwar dated August 28, 1962 and the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Ajmer Range, Jaipur dated October 9, 1963.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Physical Training Instructor under the Director of Education, Rajasthan, and was placed in the III running grade of Rs. 75 -200 with and annual increment of Rs. 5/ -. A show cause notice was served upon him on July 20, 1962 in which four charges were levelled against him and he was called upon to furnish an explanation as to why his annual grade increments be not withheld. The petitioner submitted an explanation which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Inspector of Schools, Alwar and the said authority held that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The Inspector of Schools found that the work and behaviour of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he further found that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and indisciplined activities, on the basis of the reports of the heads of institutions under whom he had worked. The Inspector of Schools imposed a two fold penalty upon the petitioner, namely that a warning be administered to him to mend his work and behaviour and the same be entered in the service book and further that one annual grade increment be withheld with cumulative effect. The petitioner field an appeal, but the Deputy Director of Education, Ajmer Range. Jaipur by his order dated October 9, 1963 rejected the appeal on the ground that he did not see any reason to interfere with order passed by the Inspector of Schools as the petitioner was found guilty of several acts of indiscipline and misconduct. The petitioner thereafter filed a further appeal to the State Government and submitted that he should have been given an opportunity to cross -examine the Head Master, who made a complaint against him. The State Government by its order dated December 5, 1969 partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to cross examine the Head Master, when an enquiry was conducted on the allegations reveled against him It was, therefore, held that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was harsh. The State Government modified the penalty imposed upon the petitioner and besides administering him a warning to be entered in the service record, a further penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The petitioner has come up before this Court against the aforesaid order passed by the State Government imposing the aforesaid minor penalties upon him.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Advocate contended that under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the petitioner had no right to cross -examine the Head Master. According to the learned Assistant Government Advocate no evidence was at all recorded in respect of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. However, learned Assistant Government Advocate was unable to point out from the order of the State Government (Ex. 4) as to whether any of the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved against him by the State Government However, he relied upon the fact that certain penalties were imposed upon the petitioner by the very same order of the State Government (Ex. 4) and he argued that in these circumstances it must be presumed that the State Government agreed with the findings arrived at by the Inspector of Schools.