GHANSHYAM KRISHAN NAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant appeal, Ghanshyam appellant-plaintiff herein has challenged the judgment & decree dated 27. 11. 1989 of the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the judgment & decree dated 28. 1. 1980 of the Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been affirmed and plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the impugned order of punishment dt. 4. 8. 1971 and order of appellate authority dt. 22. 9. 1973. By the impugned order of punishment, the plaintiff-appellant who was discharging the duties as Tehsildar, was charged with certain financial irregularities committed by him in discharge of his duties, on the basis of a complaint filed against him. THE petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dt. 16. 4. 1969 passed by the disciplinary authority. Charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the "cca Rules") to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed an enquiry. THE enquiry was conducted by the Addl. District Magistrate Kota. THE charges were proved against the plaintiff and accordingly he was punished with stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and it was also held that during suspension period the plaintiff was entitled only to the subsistence allowance and other dues admissible to the petitioner i. e. salary and allowance for suspension period were directed to be forfeited to the State Exchequer. THE order of punishment was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal preferred before the State Government, which upheld the order of punishment and dismissed his appeal by order dt. 22. 9. 1973, against which the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit inter-alia on the averments that the orders of punishment of both the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority were both not sustainable in the eyes of law being not in conformity with requirement of law as they were not speaking orders because they did not assign reasons which impelled the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself and considered their rival contentions, and also having examined the relevant material on record with reference to the legal position as well, the questions of law, which do arise for consideration by this Court in this second appeal are formulated as under- (1) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge concurrent findings which have been recorded by two courts below on proper appreciation of evidence on record particularly when the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration an over all view of the matter and had found the plaintiff appellant guilty of the impugned charges of having committed financial irregularity as alleged in the memo of charge sheet? (2) Whether the order of punishment has not been passed by the competent authority namely Chairman Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer who is duly empowered in exercise of its powers as specified in part 111 and Rule 15 (1) of the CCA Rules? (3) Whether the order of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect which was affirmed by the appellate authority (State Government) in appeal is open to challenge merely on the ground that no reasons have been assigned in the manner as so alleged? (4) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge the finding of the aforesaid two authorities particularly when the appellant was given due opportunity of hearing and even on principles of natural justice it would be fallacious to arrive at contrary decision that the impugned order of punishment suffers from vice of being non-speaking particularly when on proper appreciation of evidence, it was found by the said authorities that the appellant was guilty of the charges of grave financial irregularities?