SBCWP NO.214/2004. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.214/2004. Samoon Ali V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 26/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.S. Beg for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel for the State. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28/2/1986 whereby the disciplinary authority imposed upon him a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the order dated 24/12/1992 whereby his appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed as time barred. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Dutta Sharma Vs. State : RLR 1987(1) 346 and has argued that stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect being a major penalty, could not be imposed under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "Rules of 1958"). It was argued that neither any enquiry as required by Rule 16 of the SBCWP NO.214/2004. 2 Rules of 1958 for imposition of major penalty was held against the petitioner nor petitioner was ever associated with any departmental enquiry. The aforesaid appeal was rejected on mere fact that it was filed after expiry of 13 months from the date of imposition of penalty. Learned counsel argued that petitioner immediately after rejection of appeal, filed review petition but the review petition has so far not been decided. 3) Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition has been filed in 2004 against the order of penalty dated 28/2/1986 and therefore it is liable to be dismissed as it suffers from delay and latches. The writ petition is filed with enormous delay even if it is considered from the date of rejection of appeal. 4) A perusal of the averments of the writ petition particularly those contained in para 11 reveals that petitioner has specifically asserted about filing of review petition immediately after rejection of his appeal and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents in their reply in terms that "contents of para 11 of the writ petition are admitted according to the record." It is thus evident that respondents did not deny the factum of filing of review petition but at the same time they are also not in a position to explain as to why the review petition SBCWP NO.214/2004. 3 has not been decided for so long. Apart from the question of delay, if the matter is examined on merit, it would be evident that there is no denial to the fact that penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner wrongly exercising powers under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 whereas according to the Division Bench judgment in Krishna Dutt Sharma supra, imposition of penalty of this nature in the scope of Rule 17 of CCA Rules would be absolutely without jurisdiction. In that case too, the argument with regard to delay was raised by the State of Rajasthan which was rejected by the Division Bench observing that the "question of delay will not come in the way of the appellant". Division Bench further held that the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect imposed under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was totally without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. It was held that before imposition of such penalty, procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules must be followed. 5) In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned-order dated 28/2/1986 imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the order dated 24/12/1992 whereby his appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed as time barred, are quashed and set-aside. SBCWP NO.214/2004. 4 The petitioner is held entitled to receive all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this judgment within three months from the date copy of the same is produced before them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-