SBCWP No.2319/1999- Dilip Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:01.04.2009 1 S.B. C.W.P. No.2319/1999 Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others Date of order: 01st April, 2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr P.P. Chaudhary, for the petitioner Mr K.R. Saharan, Government counsel for the respondents To challenge the order dated 27th February, 1999 passed by the Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Jaisalmer, imposing a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner, this petition for writ is preferred. By a memorandum dated 18th October, 1998 as per rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 the petitioner was charged for committing negligence while producing a cheque before the Executive Engineer to get signed. The cheque was for an amount of Rs.496501/- though the actual payment required to be made to party concerned i.e. Balaji Construction Company Ltd was only for an amount of Rs.396501/-. As a consequent to wrong mention of the amount, a sum of rupees one Lac was paid in excess to Balaji Construction Company Ltd and that was treated as a serious negligence on the part of petitioner. In the memorandum, it was also mentioned that the amount paid in SBCWP No.2319/1999- Dilip Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:01.04.2009 2 excess was returned by the Balaji Construction Company Ltd with interest and as such, no loss was caused to the State. The petitioner denied the charges and as such, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 08th February, 1999. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner negligent in noting down a sum of Rs.4,96,501/- instead of Rs.3,96,501/-. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting findings given by the Enquiry Officer, by the order impugned imposed a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, is that the petitioner certainly erred while noting down sum of Rs.4,96,501/- instead of a sum of Rs.3,96,501/- but that was not intentional but an error. It is also urged that the payment was made to Balaji Construction Company Ltd after getting signatures of the Executive Engineer concerned, thus, he should have examined the amount relating to actual payment. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have penalized the petitioner, who is a Lower Division Clerk but at the same time, no action was taken against the Executive Engineer, who was the authority competent to SBCWP No.2319/1999- Dilip Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:01.04.2009 3 clear such payment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Secretary, Indira Gandhi Canal Division, Jaipur by its order dated 02nd June, 2000 simply communicated an unwritten warning to Shri Shanti Chand Patwa, the Executive Engineer, who actually signed the cheque. The fact stated above, relating to giving unwritten warning to Shri Shanti Chand Patwa, Executive Engineer under letter dated 02nd June, 2000, is not denied by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents shown me from original record a copy of the letter dated 02nd June, 2000 whereby an unwritten warning was given to the Executive Engineer. While meeting the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated by Shri Kumbha Ram, learned counsel for the State, that no discrimination can be alleged in the instant matter as the Executive Engineer just acted upon the ministerial work done by the petitioner and therefore, the negligence on the part of petitioner is quite more serious than the negligence of the Executive Engineer. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that on 24th June, 1998; the petitioner while working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Phalodi Division, entered SBCWP No.2319/1999- Dilip Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:01.04.2009 4 a sum of Rs.4,96,501/- in a negotiable instrument instead of a sum of Rs.3,96,501/- and that was presented before the Executive Engineer for getting signed. As a matter of fact, actual disbursing authority of the amount concerned was the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer before putting his signature on the cheque concerned was suppose to examine the actual amount that was required to be paid to Balaji Construction Company Ltd. If an error was committed by the petitioner by making mention of excess amount in the cheque then the Executive Engineer too erred while putting signature on the cheque concerned without verifying the actual amount. The act of the petitioner in no way is more serious or having higher degree of negligence than the negligence made by the Executive Engineer. As such, subjecting the Executive Engineer merely by an unwritten warning while giving penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to petitioner, is highly unjust. As a matter of fact, the Executive Engineer being head of the office, was bearing much more responsibility than a Lower Division Clerk, to assess, examine and verify correctness of the amount that was to be paid to Balaji Construction Company Ltd. If the respondents were of the view that the Executive Engineer SBCWP No.2319/1999- Dilip Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:01.04.2009 5 was required to be subjected by an unwritten warning only then there was no reason to subject the petitioner by any penalty higher than the penalty given to the Executive Engineer Shri Shanti Chand Patwa. As a matter of fact, the Executive Engineer was not at all subjected to any penalty. Looking to the fact that in the same course of incident, a person who was more negligent than the petitioner is dealt with quite leniently, I consider it appropriate to bring the petitioner at the same pedestal with the person aforesaid. In view of it, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 27th February, 1999 is quashed, with direction to the Disciplinary Authority to give an unwritten warning to the petitioner as that was given to the Executive Engineer Shri Shanti Chand Patwa. The petition for writ stands disposed of accordingly. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma