Partly allowed

Prahlad Rai Swami v. M.C,Jhunjhunu

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2009CW/1264/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur allowed the Writ Petition in part. The Court quashed the order imposing a fine of 10 times the lost amount and interest, reasoning that such punitive multiplier was unjustified, though it upheld the stoppage of one annual grade increment.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order imposing fine of Rs. 13286 and interest of Rs. 4214; stopped penalty to one annual increment maintained.

Prahlad Rai Swami Vs M.C,Jhunjhunu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

SBCWP No. 1264/ 95.

¶2

¶3

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

BENCH AT JAI PUR.

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

S. B. CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON No. 1264/ 1995.

¶7

Pr ahal ad Rai Swami

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Muni ci pal Commi t t ee, Jhunj hunu.

¶10

Dat e of Or der : - Mar ch 03, 2009.

¶11

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q

¶12

Shr i Govi nd Shar ma f or Shr i Sanj ay Mehl a f or t he pet i t i oner . Shr i Zaki r Hussai n, Addi t i onal Gover nment Counsel . * * * * * *

¶13

BY THE COURT: -

¶14

Thi s wr i t pet i t i on has been f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner agai nst t he or der of penal t y dat ed 6/ 9/ 1993 by whi ch, pet i t i oner was awar ded st oppage of t wo annual gr ade i ncr ement s wi t h cumul at i ve ef f ect and t he or der dat ed 20/ 10/ 1993 by whi ch t he amount of Rs. 1328. 60 whi ch amount , i t was al l eged t hat t he pet i t i oner was r esponsi bl e f or causi ng l oss t o t he Muni ci pal Boar d was or der ed t o be r ecover ed f r om t he pet i t i oner and i t was di r ect ed

¶15

SBCWP No. 1264/ 95.

¶16

¶17

t hat amount of Rs. 13286. 00 i . e. 10 t i mes of t he af or esai d amount shoul d be r ecover ed f r om hi m as penal t y and f ur t her amount of Rs. 4214/ - shoul d be r ecover ed as i nt er est . Tot al amount of Rs. 18828. 60 was or der ed t o be r ecover ed f r om t he pet i t i oner vi de or der dat ed 20/ 10/ 1993 passed by t he Execut i ve Of f i cer Nagar Pal i ka Jhunj hunu. I n t he cour se of ar gument s, l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner has submi t t ed t hat penal t y of st oppage of t wo annual gr ade i ncr ement s was subsequent l y r educed t o st oppage of one annual gr ade i ncr ement i n hi s appeal vi de or der dat ed 30/ 12/ 1994 ( Ann. 9) but t he ot her par t of t he or der has been mai nt ai ned. 2) Lear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner submi t t ed t hat t he di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y wr ongl y assumed i t t o be a case of embezzl ement t her eby causi ng l oss t o t he Muni ci pal Boar d. I t was si mpl e case of adj ust ment of amount of Oct r oi r ecei ved f r om one t r uck dr i ver agai nst anot her . Pet i t i oner had no i nt ent i on of commi t t i ng embezzl ement of t he r evenue. The di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y has not pr ovi ded adequat e oppor t uni t y t o t he pet i t i oner i nasmuch as, t her e was no evi dence t o pr ove t he char ge agai nst t he pet i t i oner . Lear ned counsel f ur t her submi t t ed t hat whi l e awar di ng penal t y of st oppage of one annual gr ade i ncr ement , at t he same

¶18

SBCWP No. 1264/ 95.

¶19

¶20

t i me i mposi ng penal t y of 10 t i mes t he amount of l oss, cannot be i mposed upon t he pet i t i oner as i t woul d amount t o doubl e j eopar t y.

¶21

Lear ned counsel appear i ng f or t he r espondent s has opposed t he wr i t pet i t i on and submi t t ed t hat pet i t i oner has been r i ght l y awar ded penal t y f or mi sconduct t hat was pr oved agai nst hi m and t hi s cour t cannot i nt er f er e i n t he or der wher e t he evi dence f ul l y pr ove gui l t of t he pet i t i oner . 4) Upon hear i ng l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es and per usi ng t he mat er i al on r ecor d, I f i nd t hat t he enqui r y of f i cer i n hi s r epor t has di scussed t he evi dence agai nst t he pet i t i oner i n r espect of each of t he char ges and f ound al l t he t hr ee char ges pr oved agai nst t he pet i t i oner . I n f act , enqui r y r epor t r ecommended t hat apar t f r om awar di ng penal t y, penal t y of 10 t i mes t he amount of l oss shoul d be r ecover ed f r om t he pet i t i oner . I n my consi der ed vi ew, t he enqui r y of f i cer had no j ust i f i cat i on t o make such a r ecommendat i on t o t he di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y. Hi s r ol e was conf i ned t o j ust r ecor di ng f i ndi ng whet her or not char ges agai nst t he del i nquent pet i t i oner wer e pr oved or not and beyond t hat he had no r ol e t o pl ay. The di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y has al so compl et el y l ost sought of t hi s aspect of t he mat t er and has adher ed

¶22

SBCWP No. 1264/ 95.

¶23

¶24

t o t he r ecommendat i on of t he enqui r y of f i cer by awar di ng f i ne of 10 t i mes t he amount of l oss as al so di r ect i ng r ecover y of Rs. 13286 and Rs. 4214/ - as i nt er est . Appel l at e aut hor i t y has al t hough r educed t he penal t y f r om f our i ncr ement s t o onl y one i ncr ement but has mai nt ai ned t he af or esai d or der on ot her aspect s. On per usal of t he or der of t he di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y as al so t he appel l at e aut hor i t y, I do not f i nd t hat t hi s i s a case wher e i t can be sai d t hat t her e was no evi dence agai nst t he pet i t i oner . Cont ent i on of t he pet i t i oner t hat dr i ver i nf or med hi m t hat goods i n quest i on was meant t o be del i ver ed at Mandr el l a and not at Jhunj hunu and t her ef or e t he t r ansi t pass was r equi r ed t o be i ssued and t he oct r oi was not t o be char ged, cannot be bel i eved i n t he f ace of t he f act t hat r ecei pt t hat was pr oduced had over wr i t i ng.

¶25

However , t he or der i mposi ng penal t y 10 t i mes t he amount of l oss and t he i nt er est t her eupon cannot be j ust i f i ed.

¶26

The wr i t pet i t i on deser ves t o be accept ed t o t hat ext ent onl y.

¶27

I n t he r esul t , t he wr i t pet i t i on i s al l owed i n par t . The i mpugned or der i mposi ng penal t y of one annual gr ade i ncr ement i s mai nt ai ned but t he or der of t he di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y dat ed

¶28

SBCWP No. 1264/ 95.

¶29

¶30

20/ 10/ 1993 ( Ann. 7) i mposi ng Rs. 13286. 00 as 10 t i mes of t he af or esai d amount and f ur t her amount of Rs. 4214/ - as i nt er est i s quashed and set - asi de. I f such amount has al r eady been r ecover ed f r om t he pet i t i oner , same shal l be l i abl e t o be r ef unded t o hi m.

¶31

Compl i ance of t he j udgment shal l be made wi t hi n a per i od of t hr ee mont hs f r om t he dat e i t s copy i s pr oduced bef or e t he r espondent s.

¶32

( MOHAMMAD RAFI Q) J.

¶33

ani l

Prahlad Rai Swami v. M.C,Jhunjhunu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Rai Swami v. M.C,Jhunjhunu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdev Naurya Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Brij Kishore Gupta Vs Raj State Ganganagar Sugar Mil

Gokul Chand Pareek Vs the Chairman R S R T C Jaipur

U.B.Mathur Vs I.T.D.C.Ltd.

Kota Open University, Kota. Vs the Judge Labour Court, Kota.

Gaya Parsad Vs Exicutive Officer,Munici.Board Dholpur