1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4027/1999 Gopi Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order :: 02.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr A.K. Rajwanshy, for the petitioner/s. ... To challenge the order dated 8.6.1998 passed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing imposing a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and the order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order dated 8.6.1998 this petition for writ is preferred. In brief the facts of the case are that by a memorandum dated 11.6.1965 issued under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Rules of 1958') the petitioner was instructed to explain as to why he be not penalized for commission of misconduct that is of retaining government money relating to General Provident Fund and State Insurance unauthorizedly. While submitting a reply to the charge-sheet the petitioner urged that the amount concerned was deposited by him in a separate account due to non- availability of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance account numbers of the employees concerned. He also stated that immediately on getting account numbers he withdrew the amount from post office 2 and deposited the same with the relevant account of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance. The petitioner also stated that, as a matter of fact, due to delay in depositing the deductions relating to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance, an interest was charged and that was borne by him. The explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 8.12.1997 which came to be received in the office of the Director, Agriculture Marketing on 10.12.1997. The Director by the order impugned dated 8.6.1998, by mentioning that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner, imposed the penalty in question. An appeal preferred by the petitioner as per provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 also came to be rejected by the Government of Rajasthan under the order dated 30.7.1999. While assailing validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities concerned failed to appreciate that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation but that was not taken into consideration. It is also asserted that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is bad in the eye of law on the count that the petitioner is held guilty merely on the count that he has not submitted any explanation to the memorandum dated 11.7.1996. As per learned counsel for the petitioner though the petitioner submitted an explanation but even in the case of non-submission of explanation to the 3 charges it was not open for the disciplinary authority to treat acceptance of the charges by the delinquent employee. At the most it could have been a reason to conduct a regular inquiry or in the case of proceedings under Rule 17 to examine entire record of the matter at its own. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty for the charges concerned has not given any reason to support the same. The order passed by the appellate authority is assailed on the count that same is a non-speaking and un-reasoned order and further on the count that the appellate authority failed to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record available. From perusal of the order Annexure-6 passed by the disciplinary authority it is apparent that no specific finding is given by the disciplinary authority against the charges for which the petitioner was subjected to inquiry. The disciplinary authority merely mentioned that he has examined the entire record thoroughly and minutely and on basis of that the petitioner was found guilty. Mere reference of examining of record is not sufficient to establish charges against an employee. The disciplinary authority should by adequate application of mind must consider entire evidence available on record and should 4 reach at a definite conclusion. Such conclusion must be supported by reasons. In the instant matter, the disciplinary authority should have given reference of all documents or the other evidence available on basis of which he satisfied himself regarding guilt of the petitioner. The absence of such reasons makes the order impugned bad. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (dead) by LRs & Ors. Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr. reported in 2004 (7) SCC 431 held that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter must be given. In the instant case no reasons of whatsoever nature are available in the order impugned and the same, therefore, is bad in the eye of law. It is pertinent to note that under the Rules of 1958 a penalty can be imposed upon the government servant for good and sufficient reasons, thus, a good and sufficient reason should be there for imposing a penalty and availability of such reasons must reflect in the order concerned. Recording of reasons acquires more importance whenever and wherever the order is open to appeal. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the disciplinary authority under the Rules of 1958 is appealable under Rule 23 and as such the order passed by the disciplinary authority, may that be as a consequent to the proceedings under rule 16 or 17 of the Rules of 1958, is required to be a reasoned one. 5 I have also examined the order passed by the appellate authority. The order of affirmance is also not a speaking and reasoned order. The petitioner in his appeal raised various issues relating to charges levelled against him. He has given all necessary details of circumstances in which it was not possible for him to deposit the amount relating to deduction of Provident Fund and State Insurance. The appellate authority should have taken into consideration all those circumstances before passing an order accepting or rejecting the appeal. An interesting feature of this case is that before holding regular inquiry as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 a preliminary inquiry was made by the Dy. Director, Agriculture Marketing, Sriganganagar who after considering all necessary details reached at the conclusion that the petitioner should not be subjected to any inquiry as no misconduct on his part appears to be committed. For the reasons whatever stated above this petition for writ deserves acceptance, accordingly, the same is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 8.6.1998 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.7.1999 are hereby declared illegal, and thus, the same are quashed. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '