KESHRI MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was employed as an Amin in the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan. THE case of petitioner is that be was initially employed on the post of an Amin by the order dated December 1, 1948 passed by the Settlement Commissioner of the former State of Udai-pur and that he was subsequently confirmed on the aforesaid post by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated March 21, 1957. While the petitioner was working on the post of an Amin, he was served with a memorandum calling upon him to show cause, along with a charge-3heet and a statement of allegations, by the Settlement Officer, Udaipur. THE petitioner was, thus, informed that a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), has been started against him. THE petitioner thereupon filed his written statement of defence and the Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry in which as many as 26 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department in respect of the six charges framed against the petitioner. THE Settlement Officer by his order dated May 24, 1971, after discussing the evidence led before him in the departmental enquiry, came to the conclusion that charges Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were not proved against the petitioner, while charges Nos. 1,3 and 4 were found proved against him. THE Settlement Officer also came to the conclusion that the imposition of the penalty of withholding two yearly grade increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect could be sufficient punishment, looking to the guilt of the petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid punishment was inflicted upon him. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer dated May 24, 1971 before the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, but the same was dismissed by the order dated October 18, 1972. A review petition against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated January 31, 1973 on the ground that a review petition was not maintainable in law.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition, the penalty imposed upon him as a result of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings. THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Settlement Officer, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and it was only the appointing authority who was entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him According to the petitioner, as already stated above, he was appointed initially by the Settlement Commissioner of the former State of Udaipur and was also confirmed by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur and thus, the appointing authority was the Settlement Commissioner, so far as the petitioner was concerned. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the Settlement Officer was the disciplinary authority with regard to the petitioner as he was the Head of the Office and the petitioner was a ministerial Government servant. THEre can be no dispute that the petitioner was a ministerial Government servant and the Settlement Officer of the circle concerned is the Head of the Office, as specified in Schedule 'b' appended to the Rules. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that in respect of the ministerial servants and Class IV servants, the Head of Office shall be authorised to inflict all penalties specified in Rule 14. Of course, on account of the provisions of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution, the penalty of dismissal or removal from service could not have been imposed upon the petitioner by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, namely, the Settlement Commissioner. But as the punishment of dismissal or removal from service has not been imposed upon the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated in the present case on the ground that they were initiated by the Settlement Officer. Under Rule 16 of the Rules, it is the disciplinary authority who is authorised to initiate the disciplinary proceedings by framing definite charges, on the basis of the allegations on which an enquiry is proposed to be held against the government servant concerned. THE first contention of the learned counsel, therefore, that the Settlement Officer could not have initiated the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner cannot be accepted.

(3.) IN the present case, as I have already pointed out above, the disciplinary authority, after enumerating the charges framed against the petitioner stated: *** Besides this, in the statement of allegations which was supplied to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet, after specifying the allegations, the disciplinary authority stated:- *** Thus, that has been mentioned by the disciplinary authority in the charge-sheet as well as the statement of allegations go to show that it had prima facie made up its mind, not only in respect of the guilt of the petitioner, but also in respect of the punishment which was to be imposed upon the petitioner. It clearly appears, therefore, that the disciplinary authority had pre-judged not only the fact that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him but had also determined in advance the punishment which he deserved, even before the enquiry began The disciplinary authority started the enquiry with the assumption that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him and deserves to be punished. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate submitted that the disciplinary authority, after conducting the enquiry, held only three of the six charges proved against the petitioner while he was exonerated of the other three charges and further that the punishment of dismissal from service mentioned in the first show cause notice was not imposed upon the petitioner but his two annual grade increments were withheld with cumulative effect,by the order of the disciplinary authority dated May 24, 1971, which go to show that the disciplinary authority had not really prejudged the matter, but he conducted the enquiry in a fair and impartial manner. I am unable to agree with this contention. A perusal of the charge-sheet and statement of allegations furnished to the petitioner in the present case clearly shows that the disciplinary authority started with the assumption that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him and that even before an enquiry was conducted, it was assumed that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Not only that the punishment which was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was also specified in the charge-sheet. Thus, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority conducted the enquiry with an unbiased and open mind. Moreover, the petitioner also suffered from a feeling from the very beginning that the disciplinary authority had not only prejudged his guilt but had also predetermined the punishment which he intended to impose upon the petitioner. IN these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a fair and impartial enquiry in the matter. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the disciplinary authority after holding that three charges were found proved against the petitioner while three other charges Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were not so proved, proceeded to observe that the petitioner should have been dismissed from service on the basis of the charges found proved against him but then he took a lenient view of the matter and as such only a minor punishment was imposed upon the petitioner I, therefore, hold that the disciplinary enquiry was not held in the present case with an open and unbiased mind, as the charge sheet and the statement of allegations them-selves contained not only a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner but also mentioned the proposed punishment which may be imposed upon the petitioner, in case his guilt was proved. IN my view, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner deserves to be set aside from the stage of the giving of the charge-sheet.