IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4380/02 Mukesh Kumar Kankaria vs. Chairman Raj. State Warehousing Corporation & Ors. Date of order : 4/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.F. Baig for the petitioner. Shri Govind Prasad for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of penalty dated 5.12.2000 by which he was awarded the penalty of censure. The premise on which the petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure is that he without permission from the respondents appeared in the Kovid Examination which was held from 19.9.1994 to 29.9.1994. According to the respondents, this amounted to misconduct and therefore the penalty of censure was awarded to the petitioner. Shri M.F. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner very much applied for appearing in the examination of Kovid which is conducted by Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha. It is argued that this examination is equivalent to the secondary/matriculation. The petitioner has submitted the application for appearing in the said examination which is placed on record as Annexure-2. A perusal of column no.7 of the application clearly indicates that petitioner applied for appearing in Kovid Examination. The respondents, when they granted permission to the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.1993, indicated secondary examination in their order of permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was a mistake on the part of the competent authority i.e. Assistant Director (Admn.) who issued the permission letter and petitioner cannot be penalised for that since he had clearly indicated his intention to appear in the Kovid Examination. Learned counsel further argued that the very fact that the petitioner applied and thereafter appeared in the examination shows that he wanted to go by the rules. He was however subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the respondents due to complaint made by certain other officials of the staff. There was absolutely no basis for imposition of such a penalty. Shri Govind Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner on his own appeared in the examination of Kovid and if there was any lacuna in the order of Assistant Director (Admn.), it was required of him to first get specific permission for Kovid Examination and then appear in that examination. Act of the petitioner was therefore misconduct and that is why the penalty of censure was imposed on him. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the impugned order can neither be sustained on logic nor on law. When the petitioner applied for permission to appear in Kovid examination, the fact that he intended to go by the rules is very much writ large. Only because the competent authority while issuing the permission letter erred in indicating secondary examination in place of Kovid in the letter of permission, cannot be described as misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Imposition of penalty on such facts can hardly have any justification. The impugned order of penalty dated 5.12.2000, in my considered view, therefore, besides being arbitrary and unreasonable, is an illegal order, which cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order dated 5.12.2000 is therefore quashed and set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents shall treat the qualification acquired by the petitioner as valid for the purpose of his service career. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/