BHANWAR LAL INANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a memorandum dt. 30.06.1993 the Registrar Co -operative Societies, Jaipur initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, an inspector (Official), Co -operative Societies, as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner by the explanation submitted on 17.07.1993 denied all five of misconduct leveled against him under the memorandum aforesaid. The Registrar, Co -operative Societies being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner appointed joint Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Udaipur as inquiry officer and the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Rajsamand as Presenting Officer. After completing process of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 15.01.1994. The inquiry officer, while holding the petitioner guilty for charge No. 1, exonerated him from remaining charges. The disciplinary authority being in disagreement to findings so given communicated his disagreement with the inquiry officer relating to charge Nos. 4 and 5 vide a letter dt. 26.02.1994. By an explanation dt. 21.03.1994, the petitioner submitted his version to the disciplinary authority, however, the disciplinary authority vide order dt. 24.10.1994 held, the petitioner guilty for the charges alleged and imposed a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The challenge given to the order aforesaid by way of filling an appeal that came to be rejected by the appellate authority on 16.10.1995, hence, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) IN memo of appeal the petitioner submitted explanation regarding each and every allegation for which he was subjected to inquiry, however, the appellate authority rejected the appeal without assigning any reason merely by saying that the petitioner during the course of personal hearing failed to point cut any new fact/evidence to establish his innocence, thus, as per the petitioner the order passed by the appellate authority is absolutely non speaking and unreasoned one.

(3.) AN appeal preferred under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is required to be considered as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 that warrants examination of the facts on basis of which the delinquent employee is held guilty, the justification for holding the employee guilty and also quantum of the punishment infected. In the instant matter the appellate authority has not cared even to look into the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. The appellate authority has simply reproduced the allegations leveled against the petitioner and stated that the employee failed to produce any new fact or evidence to prove his innocence rejected the appeal. As a matter of fact, in an appeal new facts or evidence was not required to be produced and the petitioner also never intended to do so. In memo of appeal, in quite detail he has explained his conduct. The appellate authority should have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and should have given his finding regarding the charges by considering record of the inquiry. No care in this regard is taken by the appellate authority and consideration of the appeal as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 is absent.