1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.553/2007 Shanker Lal Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 13.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. ... A notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1958) dated 22.2.1995 was served upon the petitioner alleging as follows: - quote - For the same charges disciplinary action under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was also taken against one Sh. Bhanwar Singh and a penalty for recovery of a sum of Rs.9422/- was imposed upon him, however, the respondents chose to proceed against the petitioner as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for the same charge. After holding regular inquiry a report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 30.1.2003 exonerating the petitioner from the charge alleged. The inquiry officer while exonerating the petitioner holding that for the same charge Bhanwar Singh was penalized by imposition of the penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs.9422/- and also that while converting the proceedings from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 no notice was given to the 2 petitioner. The inquiry officer also held that no adequate material was available to penalise the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on 8.8.2003 while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer directed the petitioner to submit his comments. It is pertinent to note that though the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer but no specific reason is given for such disagreement. The sole contents of the order dated 8.8.2003 are that the charges are quite serious and those are required to be dealt with without any leniency. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred this petition for writ seeking a direction to quash the charge-sheet itself and further to complete the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is that the proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 are warranted as number of trees were cut down and a huge loss was caused to the State and accepted the fact regarding the imposition of minor penalty fro similar charge upon Sh. Bhanwar Singh. Considered the rival submissions and also examined the record. It is well settled that if disciplinary authority is in disagreement with the inquiry report then he is require to given specific reasons for that specially making with the reasons given by the inquiry officer to 3 exonerate the delinquent employee. In the instant matter from perusal of the document Annexure-6 dated 8.8.2003 it does not reveal as to how the disciplinary authority considered the reasons given by the inquiry officer to exonerate the petitioner, as to how he reached at the conclusion that an inquiry under Rule 16 of the rule of 1958 is warranted. The disciplinary authority has not not taken into consideration that for the same charge Sh. Bhanwar Singh, a co- delinquent employee suffered with minor punishment only. It is also pertinent to note that before converting the proceedings initiated under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 as proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, no notice was given to the petitioner. The proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 are for imposing a major punishment and if the disciplinary authority for any reason was satisfied that the matter requires consideration to impose a major penalty then it was obligatory upon him to give a notice to change the procedure. In the present matter, the disciplinary authority has neither given the notice to change the procedure of inquiry relating to minor punishment to major punishment nor he has given reasons for disagreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer. As such, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Same, therefore, is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 under the memo dated 17.12.1996 is 4 declared illegal and the same is quashed. The respondents may proceed against the petitioner either under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 or under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal