HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated October 23, 1978 (Annex. 9/i) whereby, in the exercise of the powers under r. 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules'), the Governor enhanced the penalty from withholding the grant of two increments without cumulative effect to that of reduction of rank of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector to Head-Constable for a period of two years. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police directly by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner by his order dated December 31,1965. In the year 1966, an enquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of the three charges. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him, but the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner in his capacity as Disciplinary Authority, found the petitioner guilty of charge No. 3. He, however exonerated the petitioner of charges No. 1 and 2 and consequently, passed the order dated May, 20, 1969 and imposed the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect. It appears that in exercise of the powers under r. 34, action was initiated against the petitioner for enhancement of the punishment. In May, 1971, a notice was issued to the petitioner but the same was not served on him The subsequent notice was again issued accompanied with the letter dated May 29, 1971 (Annex. R-3), but the same too was not served. The petitioner was served with the notice dated September, 1, 1976 (Ex. 4 ). It was recorded in Ex 4 that previously, notice dated 12. 5. 71 was issued but was not served. After receipt of this notice, the petitioner could not make representation and he demanded inspection of some records and supply of the copy of the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner dated May 20, 1969 and he also sought an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was then directed by Ex. 6 to come for inspection of the records at the Secretariat within 15 days, else it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. In this connection, no travelling allowances will be paid. On a further representation by the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary informed the petitioner by Ex. 7 dated 16. 11. 77 that the actual travelling expenses would be paid in connection with the inspection of the record. In case, it is not done, the matter will be decided ex-parte. It appears that the petitioner further made a representation claiming advance travelling allowance and dearness allowance. This representation was made on December 28 1977 (Ex. 8 ). Thereafter, the matter was decided on October 23, 1978 (Ex. 9/i) and copy of the order passed by the Governor under r. 34 was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner (Ex 9) dated November 16, 1978. The order dated October 23, 1978 (Ex. 9/i) inter alia, is sought to be challenged on the ground that the power under r. 34 has not been exercised within a reasonable time. It came to be exercised after lapse of 9 years. Although, the action was initiated in May 1971.

(2.) THE petition has been resisted on behalf of the respondent-State and it is averred that the power of review vests under r. 34. THE nature of the charge proved against the petitioner was taken into consideration and it was found that the petitioner has not been punished adequately, so. a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on May 12, 1971, so. within the reasonable time, action was initiated against the petitioner under r. 34. THE petitioner was afforded an opportunity to represent against the show cause notice. THE petitioner did not avail that, so, what was thought proper and just, punishment was imposed.

(3.) RELIANCE has further been placed by Shri B. L. Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner on a Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Manasaranjan Das v. State of Orissa (2 ). In that case, the petitioner was employed as Accounts Clerk. He was placed under suspension w. e. f. 1. 12. 64 on charges of embezzlement. Charges were actually communicated on 7. 6. 65. On 30. 10. 68. he submitted his explanation. No action was taken in the disciplinary proceeding. Their Lordships observed that :- "we see no justification in the order of suspension made in 1964 to have been kept alive until 1972. It was vexatious and inexpedient and had a demoralising effect on a public officer. The utter callousness shown by the Head of the office in keeping a public officer suspended almost for eight years without any justification (we say so because the proceeding was kept alive for such a long period without any excuse) justifies the annulling of the order. Accordingly we quash the order of suspension as also the disciplinary proceeding. " It would appear, not only the suspension order was quashed but the disciplinary proceedings were also quashed, simply on the ground that the official continued to be suspended for a period of 8 years without any justification for such a long period.