1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1854/1995) Date : 05.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Dipesh Beniwal for Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Additional Government Counsel, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.2.95/2.3.95 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.7.93 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect on the charges of mis conduct being proved against him, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner holding the post of LDC in the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, was served with a notice dated 13.12.91 proposing an inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ( in short 'the CCA Rules, 2 1958' hereinafter). The charges levelled against the petitioner includes that he under valued certain documents presented for registration by mentioning wrong index rates and thus mislead the Sub Registrar, which resulted in loss of revenue to the Government. The description of the documents which were found to be undervalued was also set out in the notice in detail. 3. A reply to the notice was filed on behalf of the petitioner, pointing out that he has not mentioned the wrong rates but the rates mentioned by him are correct. That apart, it is submitted that the decision regarding deficiency in the documents and inspection of the site is discretion of the Sub Registrar, therefore, the allegation that the petitioner has misguided the Sub Registrar is incorrect. 4. The Disciplinary Authority opined that in reply instead of giving explanation the petitioner has made an attempt to justify his act on technical grounds. The Disciplinary Authority observed that the delinquent employee has not made any attempt to correct the mistake pointed out even till the second inspection carried out in the month of August, 91. Accordingly, while holding the petitioner guilty 3 of the charges of misconduct levelled against him, vide order dated 27.7.93 a punishment of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.2.95, holding that the petitioner has not been able to point out any fact during the course of the hearing warranting interference with the order of penalty dated 27.7.93. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Appellate Authority so also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority are non speaking order and suffer from non application of mind. The learned counsel contended that the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 30 of the CCA Rules, 1958, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In this regard the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of 'Narain Singh Ranawat Vs.State of Rajasthan' [1992 WLN (UC) 507]. The learned counsel 4 submitted that a detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner pointing out that he has given correct index rates as per Rules and he has not mentioned incorrect rates in any of the transactions, has been ignored by the Disciplinary Authority saying that the petitioner has made an attempt to justify his act on technical grounds.The learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to record finding on the charges levelled against the petitioner after due consideration of the reply submitted by him.The learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority having failed to record his finding on each charge separately, it cannot be said that the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner stand proved.The learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has committed serious error in holding that the mistakes were pointed out in February, 91 and despite that the same were not rectified till next inspection in August, 91.According to the learned counsel, the Disciplinary Authority has erred in recording this finding,without examining the record and ignoring the fact that the petitioner was never called upon to remove the defects and even copy of the inspection memo was not given to him 5 before he was fact relieved from the post in June, 91. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact no charge was levelled against the petitioner in regard to negligence in compliance of the direction given vide inspection memo of February, 91, therefore, the finding of guilt could not have been recorded in respect of such charge nor punishment could have been imposed against the petitioner. 7. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Counsel that the orders impugned passed do not suffer from any illegality. It is submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority so also by the Appellate Authority and the findings recorded on the basis of material on record cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. It is to be noticed that when a disciplinary action is initiated under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, no formal 6 charges are framed, however the delinquent employee is to be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which the action is proposed to be taken. The delinquent employee is required to be given an opportunity to make representation, if he wishes to make such representation. As per sub rule(1) (b) of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, if any representation is made by the Government servant against the proposed action, the same is required to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority and an opportunity of personal hearing is also required to be given to the Government servant to explain his case, if he so desire. As per Rule 17 (2) of the CCA Rules, 1958, the record of proceeding in such cases shall include inter alia the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on each allegation and the order on the case together with the reasons thereof. Thus, it is statutory requirement that the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation of delinquent employee and shall record the finding on each allegation levelled against him and while passing the final order shall record the reasons therefore. 10. In the matter of Narain Singh Ranawat's case (supra) 7 this Court while examining the requirement of Rule 17(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1958, has observed as under : “A bare look at Rule 17(1)(b) shows that the competent authority is required to take into consideration representations, if any, made by the Govt. Servant. Th word 'consideration' implies of objective application of mind by the competent authority. This objective application of mind must be manifested in the order of punishment itself. In other words, the order of punishment passed on the basis of a notice issued under Rule 17 must be speaking order i.e., it must contain reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority or any other competent authority holds that the allegation/s leveled against the Govt. servant have been proved and for good reasons a particular punishment has been imposed. Rule 14 of 1958 Rules begins with the word 'the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government Servant.....' Therefore, before any 8 penalty can be imposed, it is a statutory obligation of the disciplinary authority to record reasons and such reasons must be good and sufficient. This requirement is applicable in all cases where any of the punishments specified in Rule 14 is imposed on the government servant. Recording of good and sufficient reasons constitute a condition precedent for imposition of a punishment. If the word 'consideration' as used in Rule 17(1)(b) is read with the opening words of Rule 14 it becomes clear that the competent authority must take a decision for imposition of any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 only after it feels convinced with the explanation submitted by a government servant is not satisfactory and that there are good and sufficient reasons for imposing a penalty. While recording of reasons is provided by the Rule itself, principles of natural justice warrant that such reasons must be communicated to the delinquent. It is significant to note that the government servant has a statutory right of 9 appeal against the order of punishment under Rule 23 of the 1958 Rules. If the order of punishment does not contain reasons, much less good and sufficient reasons, the government servant is seriously handicapped in submitting his appeal. At the same time, the appellate authority is deprived of an opportunity to examine the apeal with reference to the requirements of Rule 30(2) of the 1958 Rules. Unless reasons are communicated to the delinquent employee so that he can effectively assail that order in appeal the right of appeal conferred upon the Govt. servant will be reduced to farce.” A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority goes to show that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on each allegation separately has even not been taken note of. The explanation submitted by the petitioner by way of representation has been brushed aside by the disciplinary authority just saying that the petitioner has attempted to justify his acts on technical grounds. If the allegation levelled against the petitioner was 10 that while making the report he has not mentioned the correct index rates and that has resulted in misleading the Sub Registrar and consequently the loss of revenue, then the submissions made by the petitioner justifying that the index rates mentioned by him are correct, could not have been ignored by the Disciplinary Authority by just recording his ipse dixit. 11. It is to be noticed that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner vide notice dated 13.12.91 that he has failed to rectify the mistakes even after defects being pointed out in inspection conducted in February, 1991. That apart, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the said inspection memo was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner or he was directed to correct the mistakes, said to have been committed by him. It is to be noticed that the said inspection memo was received by the office of the Tehsildar i.e. Sub Registrar on 30.3.91 and thereafter on 4.6.91 an order was passed by the Tehsildar handing over the work of registration to Shri Rameshwar Dayal and Shri Leeladhar, LDC was deputed to assist him, therefore, before the alleged second inspection in August, 91, the petitioner had already handed over the charge to other person in 11 pursuance of order issued by the Tehsildar concerned. Thus, the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner without there being any such allegation levelled against him and without even examining the relevant record to ascertain the correct factual position, the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner, as aforesaid cannot be sustained. 12. Coming to the appellate order, it is to be noticed that as per Rule 30(2) of the CCA Rules, 1958, in case of appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14, the Appellate Authority is under an obligation to consider as to whether the procedure prescribed has been complied with, whether the facts on which order is passed have been established and whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order. A bare perusal of the impugned appellate order goes to show that the Appellate Authority has not even considered the ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal and proceeded to reject the appeal by merely saying that the petitioner has not been able to present any such facts requiring change/modification in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 12 Thus, in view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.7.93 so also the order dated 22.2.95/2.3.95 passed by the Appellate Authority suffer from non application of mind and are non speaking orders passed ignoring the procedure laid down under Rule 17 and Rule 30 respectively of the CCA Rules, 1958. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annexure-3 dated 27.7.93 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order Annexure-5 dated 22.2.95/2.3.95 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.