1 SBCW NO.6589/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6589/2007 Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 18/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.4 dated 14.9.2005, order Annex.8 dated 16.11.2006 and order Annex.10 dated 13.6.2007. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a joint inquiry under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) came to be initiated by the respondents. The memorandum of allegation against the present petitioner and one Gopal Lal Meena came to be served on both the delinquents. By order Annex.1, Additional Director (Vigilance) of the respondent State Insurance and General Provident Fund 2 SBCW NO.6589/2007 Department held that petitioner Mohd. Ibrahim and Gopal Lal Meena both Upper Division Clerks were negligent in discharging their duties. However, the Disciplinary Authority visited the petitioner with a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 14.9.2005 Annex.4. However, so far as co-delinquent Gopal Lal Meena is concerned, he was given only verbal warning to be careful in future. The order Anex.4 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 16.11.2006 Annex.8 modified the punishment from stoppage of two grade increments to that of Censure which was further challegned by way of an appeal, however, by order dated 13.6.2007, the same has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delinquency against the petitioner as well as co- delinquent was one and the same and undisputedly there had been a joint inquiry as envisaged under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules. However, the adverse order of punishment has been passed only against the petitioner which caused prejudice to him. In Prabhudan Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1991 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 355, a joint inquiry was initiated against 3 SBCW NO.6589/2007 petitioner Prabhudan Charan and one Shanker Singh on a joint charge sheet given to them, this Court held that there is no justification in passing the order only against the petitioner therein which has certainly caused serious prejudice to him. It was further held that the respondent had not applied his mind to this aspect of the matter while passing the order against the petitioner therein and on these premises, the adverse order passed against the petitioner therein was held to be not sustainable and was quashed. However, it was made clear that the respondents will be free to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the instant case, undisputedly, there had been a joint inquiry under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules on a joint charge sheet having been served to the petitioner and co-delinquent and from the order it is obvious that the petitioner has been visited with the penalty by the disciplinary authority of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect which was modified to punishment of Censure on an appeal by the petitioner, but the fact remains that co-delinquent Gopal Lal Meena has not been visited with any penalty, on the contrary, he has been given only oral warning. In the circumstances, therefore, the orders impugned cannot sustain and are liable to be quashed. 4 SBCW NO.6589/2007 In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned Annex.4 dated 14.9.05, Annex.8 dated 16.11.2006 and Annex.10 dated 13.6.2007 are quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order on the basis of material before the authorities after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp 5 SBCW NO.6589/2007 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 5852/07 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6589/07 Date of order : 18/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Govt. Counsel for respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp