SBCWP3931/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3931/1997 Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Suresh Goyal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hari Bareth, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. Petitioner Mahavir Singh has assailed order of penalty dated 07.05.1992 of the disciplinary authority whereby it imposed upon petitioner penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effective in proceedings under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules') and order dated 13.03.1995 of appellate authority by which appeal filed against that order was rejected. Shri Suresh Goyal, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner was issued a memo on 16.11.1991 by Chief Engineer, SBCWP3931/1997 // 2 // Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, on the charge that when he was working as Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Section-I in Sub Division, Atru, in the month of May, 1989, he caused to be shown one name of Madan Lal S/o Shri Ganpat Lal at Serial No.10 in Muster Roll No.5711 as a labour, who actually did not work at the site and thus attempted to make a forged entry of a sum of Rs.150/- towards wages to be paid to such labour of three days. By doing so, he violated relevant instructions issued by Public Works Department, especially the Chief Engineer. Petitioner submitted reply to said memo denying the charge. It was contended by him that payment of three days wages was disallowed to said Madan Lal by Assistant Engineer, although other workers clearly proved that he actually discharged duties in those three days. Petitioner was then transferred and relieved. The disciplinary authority however mechanically awarded penalty against petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that no misconduct was committed by petitioner. The word 'misconduct' carries a meaning that misconduct is an act of intentional wrong doing. The misconduct intention act of SBCWP3931/1997 // 3 // commission or omission which causes some wrongful loss to the Government or some wrongful gain to the public servant or it is based on direction of duties or disobedience etc. Unless some wrong is attached with the act, it cannot become a misconduct. The only charge against petitioner has never been supported by cogent evidence to prove that petitioner caused any wrongful loss to the Government or caused some act to have wrongful gain to him. In absence of any misconduct shown to have been committed by petitioner, the order of punishment against him is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner's written explanation was not taken into consideration by disciplinary authority and the order is completely silent thereabout. The appellate authority has also mechanically rejected his appeal by a non-speaking order. Petitioner has also produced enclosed with the appeal an affidavit of concerned workman Madan Lal, but that has not at all been considered by appellate authority. In that affidavit, the workman stated that he actually discharged the duties in those three days and it was the SBCWP3931/1997 // 4 // petitioner and no other officer who checked his work. Shri Hari Bareth, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, opposed writ petition and submitted that petitioner as Junior Engineer was solely responsible for maintaining muster rolls properly and he was under obligation to ensure that genuine entries are made therein and no such labour is entered in the muster roll who did not actually work; in the present matter said labour Mand Lal did not work for the aforesaid period yet he was sought to be paid the wages. It is immaterial whether or not actually the payment of Rs.150/- as wages was made to said workman Madan Lal but what is important is that in the muster roll, that was prepared under supervision of petitioner, his name was entered and that situation was saved admittedly by intervention of Assistant Engineer, who disallowed the payment to Madan Lal. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that disciplinary authority, vide impugned order under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, has awarded above penalty of stoppage of one grade SBCWP3931/1997 // 5 // increment without cumulative effect to the petitioner and that there was ample material before the disciplinary authority to do so. Argument of petitioner that some wrongful loss should have been caused to Government or some wrongful gain should be shown to have caused to petitioner in order to constitute misconduct, cannot be appreciated. From the facts that are proved or taken as proved by the disciplinary authority, it is clearly borne out that petitioner could not justify, with cogent reasons, inclusion of name of Shri Madan Lal in the muster roll for relevant 3 days. He actually did not discharge the work in those three days and yet he was proposed to be paid a sum of Rs.150/-. Even if actually such payment was not made, that does not in any case mitigate the misconduct of petitioner. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//