JAGJIWAN CHAND Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing the order Annexure-1 dated January 24, 1985 of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, by which the penalty of the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was impose on him.

(2.) BRIEFLY recapitulated, the case set-up in the petition is that the petitioner was working in Stamp Reporting Section in the Bench of the High Court at Jaipur in May, 1984. On May 10, 1984, he passed the file of S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 169/1984 (Narain Ram v. State of Rajasthan) without ascertaining whether the impugned order was filed by the party or that it was on record. When the case came up before learned Single judge, he-passed an order on July 25, 1984 directing the Deputy Registrar To take nece-ssary action against the defaulter. Thereupon the Additional. Registrar initiated an inquiry against the petitioner under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the C. C. A. Rules ). The petitioner was informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which the action was proposed to betaken. He-was called-upon to take any representation and file reply or explanation as he wished to make. The petitioner submitted his reply and representation and he same was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Additional Registrar. He was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The result was that the penalty of with holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by the Additional Registrar by the impugned order Annexure 1. The imposed order was assailed mainly on two grounds (1) the Additional Registrar was not the Disciplinary Authority and as such he could not impose any penalty; and (2) the penalty for with holding two grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not be awarded without following the procedure under rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules. The procedure under rule 16 of the CCA. Rules for imposing major penalties was not followed by the Additional Registrar.

(3.) THE petitioner, as regards the disciplinary action, is governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953. Rule 12 of these Rules, enumerating the penalties, which can be imposed on a delinquent, is a re-production of rule 14 of the CCA. Rules. For convenience, we may reproduce rule 12 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (for short 'the High Court Rules): - "12- Penalties: - THE following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed by the Chief Justice or, subject to any special order of the Chief Justice, by the Registrar upon the persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court, namely: - (i) Censure; (ii) With holding of increments or promotion; (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss casued to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or (iv) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) Compulsory retirement on proportionate pension; (vi) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment; (vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (rest not necessary) Rule 13 of the High Court Rules lays down mode of inquiries for imposing the penalties. It reads as under:- "13-Inquiries into conduct of members of staff: THE rules or orders regulating inquiries into allegations against servants of the State Government shall apply with the necessary modifications and adaptations to inquiries into the conduct of members of the staff attached to the High Court. "