SBCWP No.3300/2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3300/2001. Chandgi Ram Vs. State & Anr. Date of Order:- 22 July 2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Pyarelal for the petitioner. Shri Alladin Khan, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner who at the relevant time was working as Tehsildar with the respondents has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated 6/4/1996 whereby, he was awarded a penalty of censure in proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "Rules of 1958"). The petitioner did not file appeal against the said order. Instead however, he belatedly filed a review petition thereagainst. The reviewing authority also rejected the review petition vide his order dated 18/11/2000. Hence, this writ petition. SBCWP No.3300/2001. 2 3) Shri Pyarelal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that charges against the petitioner were absolutely baseless inasmuch as, the incident was of the time when petitioner was working as Tehsildar at Merta City during year 1992-93. The office of Sub-Registrar Stamps & Registration is an independant office but in absence of Sub Registrar, petitioner was having additional charge of that office. Out of the four charges, only Charge Nos.1 and 4 were not found proved. 4) He submitted that while Charge No.1 was to the effect that certain documents registered by the petitioner were undervalued whereas the fact was that the valuation was made as per the report of the clerk concerned and petitioner did not cause any loss of revenue to the State. Charge No.4 was to the effect that audit party raised objection that when petitioner had additional charge of the office of Sub-Registrar for the period from 16/6/1993 to 22/6/1993, an amount of Rs.17975/- was not recovered on the registered document. According to the petitioner, this amount though was not recovered at the time of registration but was eventually deposited even before audit objection. Learned counsel argued that petitioner in addition to own work as Tehsildar was not only having the charge of the office of Sub- Registrar but also Nayab Tehsildar. The disciplinary authority was not justified in holding him guilty of supervisory negligence. The order of censure would SBCWP No.3300/2001. 3 have effect on his promotional avenues inasmuch as, all his juniors have been promoted prior to his promotion one year prior to him on regular basis on the post of Tehsildar which would effect his further promotion in the junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service. He did not file appeal against the order of penalty immedicately because he was under the impression that the penalty of censure would not effect his promotional prospects but lateron when he realised his mistake, he filed review petition. Learned counsel therefore prayed that impugned orders of penalty as also the rejection of the review petition be quashed and set-aside. 5) Shri Alladin Khan, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner in reply to the notice though denied the charges but at the same time, citing the reason of dual charge, clearly stated that it was at best a case of bonafide mistake. This amounted to admission of supervisory negligence on his part. Even if Charge Nos.2 and 3 are not taken as fully proved, there was ample evidence to prove that it was a case of supervisory negligence on Charges No.1 and 4 because in para 3 of his reply to the notice, petitioner has clearly stated that this so happened due to his having dual charge and furthermore he was required to go to the rural areas for camps and due to excess of work. SBCWP No.3300/2001. 4 6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other material forming part of this petition, I find that charge Nos.2 and 3 have not been proved but Charges No.1 & 4 which are found particually proved against the petitioner in which he has been held guilty of supervisory negligence. 7) In view of totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no evidence for finding of supervisory negligence against the petitioner. In fact, tenure of his reply, itself provides corroboration to the finding of supervisory negligence. Fact that petitioner was having dual charge at the relevant time, at best it can be a mitigating circumstance for award of penalty and the disciplinary authority has already considered that aspect of the matter awarding minor penalty of censure to the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that the penalty of censure should not affect his promotional prospects and that his juniors have wrongly been granted promotion one year prior to his cannot be considered as petitioner did not challenge their promotions nor any of the junior(s) is/are party to the petition. The promotion orders cannot be therefore interfered with. Regarding argument that penalty of censure may not affect his promotional prospects and that his case for promotion be considered, no prayer as such has been made in the present writ petition. The petition is directed SBCWP No.3300/2001. 5 against the order of penalty of censure and the order by which the review petition was dismissed. Therefore, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner in so far as consideration of his case for promotion ignoring penalty of censure is concerned. I therefore do not find any merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case petitioner has any grievance with regard to his delayed promotion by one year and he considers that penalty of censure was wrongly taken into consideration on account of which his promotion was delayed, it will be open to him to avail a seperate and independent remedy therefor. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil