PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 10. 12. 1999 whereby penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him and the order dated 22. 8. 2000 whereby his appeal against that order was rejected and further the order dated 5. 2. 2002 whereby his review petition was rejected.

(2.) THE order of penalty dated 10. 12. 1999 is a detailed order. According to this order, the respondents vide notification dated 11. 8. 1997 invited applications for appointment on the post of constable/constable driver and received 1953 and 55 applications for such appointment. Similarly,the respondents received 2008 applications upto 24. 11. 1997 for appointment for the year 1978- 79. Each of the applications enclosed with postal order of Rs. 25/ -. In the same manner, 6652 applications were received during the year 1998- 99 upto 30. 11. 1998 with which also postal orders each of Rs. 25/- was received. While the demand drafts of Rs. 1,66,300/- was received for the year 1998-99,the combined amount of postal orders for the year 1997-98 and 1999-2000 was Rs. 2,16,500/ -. THEse figures only pertains to application forms received for the category of Scheduled Caste for which the petitioner was made incharge to receive the applications, scrutinized them and to deposit the postal orders with the treasury. THE petitioner having not deposited the postal orders was charged of committing a misconduct. On consideration of his reply and the other material on record, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 10. 12. 1999 imposed penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect which order was confirmed by the appellate authority and in review petition also.

(3.) WHILE it remains a fact that petitioner was only responsible for scrutiny of the application forms of the candidates belonging to ST, he has been held responsible for not only segregating the postal orders received with each application but also encash them. But according to respondents it was a joint responsibility of petitioner and other members of team especially its incharge Shri Poonam Chand. The respondents in their reply however have been forthwith in admitting in para no. 5 that Poonamchand and petitioner were responsible for deposit of the same alongwith a senior clerk. Annex. 8 is the order by which the appeal of Poonamchand was allowed by the appellate authority. In the case of the petitioner, however the appellate authority on a mere hyper technical ground rejected the appeal having been filed three months delayed. Originally the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner as against the penalty of stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative effect imposed upon Poonamchand. However, he deposited the amount of loss of additional commission with the treasury, therefore, the reviewing authority has altered the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect into that of only censure. When Poonamchand who had been adjudged more responsible and awarded greater penalty than the petitioner has been shown lienency of being subjected to lesser penalty of mere censure, there is no reason why the petitioner who was originally awarded only lesser penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect be not awarded the similar treatment. The rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority on account of delay cannot be appreciated and at the same time, while the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot free for the lapses but it cannot be ignored that it was a team work where he was one of the members of the team responsible for scrutiny of the forms. Evidence that has come on record show that he alone was not responsible for the scrutiny of the forms and encashment of the postal orders and deposit of the money received therefrom with the treasury. On the contrary, the order passed in the case of Poonamchand indicate that apart from Poonamchand there were other three members of the team, Poonamchand being incharge of the team. It would therefore be appropriate that at least same penalty which was awarded Poonamchand should also be awarded to the petitioner.