Dismissed

Heera Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2009CW/1749/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service complaint petition, the petitioner challenged the disciplinary penalty of stoppage of two grade increments imposed for misconduct. He argued dissimilar treatment compared to other officers involved in the same incident violated Articles 14 and 16. The Court held the parties were not similarly situated due to differing proven acts.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the writ petition was dismissed as there was no substance in the petitioner's claims.

Heera Lal Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

CWP 1749/96

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶4

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1749/1996 Heeralal Vs. State of Rajasthan & others.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 03/11/2009

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

¶7

Mr. Pradeep Singh, for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Parihar, Deputy Govt. Counsel, for respondents

¶8

¶9

By instant petition the petitioner has

¶10

assailed the order inflicting penalty of two
grade increments with cumulative effect after
holding enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 vide order Anx.
6 dt. 17/07/1990 as also the orders by which the
appeal and review preferred were also rejected
assigning reasons vide order Anx. 7 dt.
06/06/1991 and Anx. 8 dt. 15/07/1995

¶11

respectively.

¶12

The petitioner, while working as Constable
and posted at Police Station Bheemganj Mandi, it
was alleged that while he was residing in Bapu

¶13

Colony, in the same colony one Prabu, pick
pocketor was also residing whose house was
being used for prostitution and the petitioner
also used to visit.

¶14

The petitioner lodged report at Police
Station, Railway Colony for the alleged incident
dt. 08/01/1989 wherein it was alleged that in

¶15

CWP 1749/96 [2]

¶16

Bapu Colony Prabhu and two three more persons
were abusing after consuming liquor. On this
report, two Assistant Sub Inspectors and one
Constable and three persons of Home Guard
alongwith petitioner reached there in a police
jeep at about 9.00 PM on 08/01/1989. It was
alleged by complainant that petitioner alongwith
three other persons entered the house of Kamta,
assaulted Kamta Prasad's wife, daughter-in-law,
pulled them out of their house and dragged them
in a mud while putting them into jeep. The
incident took place in the presence of two
Assistant Sub Inspectors.

¶17

For the alleged incident, the petitioner was
placed under suspension which was later on
revoked pending enquiry and charge sheet under
Rule 16 of the CCA Rules dt. 03/05/1989 was
served upon him. At the same time, two Assistant
Sub Inspectors were also served with a
memorandum under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, one
of them was punished with penalty of stoppage
of one grade increment without cumulative effect
and the other with the penalty of censure vide
orders Anx. 9 dt. 08/06/1989 and Anx. 10 dt.
19/06/1989 respectively.

¶18

So far as the petitioner is concerned, in
all three charges were levelled against him but

¶19

CWP 1749/96 [3]

¶20

the enquiry officer did not find charge charge
No. 1 and 2 proved, however, the charge NO. 3
was found proved against him, which is being
reproduced here as under:-

¶21

“ यह �क आपक� उ� त �रपोट� रपट नं 335 रोज 0 आम �दनांक 8-1-89 पर थाना रे� वे कालोनी से स 0 उ 0 िन 0 ौी क� याण िसंह एवं अ� दल मजीद कािनु 0 हसैन मोू 0 एवं वा� ि◌य� टर आर 0 एच 0 जी 0 ौीू वेश शमा� सुरे� ि िसंह �ः तम खां एवं आप ः वयं मय सरकार� जीप के बापू कोलोनी पहच कर गाड� ब� द करू द� और बाप कािन 0 मय हसैन मोु 0 तथा वािलय� टर आर एच 0 जी 0 ूवेश शमा� सुरे� ििसंह व �ः तम खां जी से उतर कर ूभु जेबकट के मकान पर �का रहा और आप ः वयं मय तीनो वािलय� टर होम गाड� के कामता ूसाद प�रवाद� के घर म� घुस गये और कामताू साद उसक� प� ि◌न कैलाश देवी उसके पुऽ िशव िसंह है पुऽ वधु �करण देवी तथा पुऽ महेश कुमार को घर से बाहर िनकाल ड� डो से मारपीट क� व कमाताूसाद उवक� प� नी एवं पुऽ वधु को मारते पीटते क�चड भर� जमीन से खींचते हये बहार गली तक ले आये तथाु कामना ू साद के छोटे पुऽ महेश कुमार को जीप म� पटकर िलया काफ� मारपीट के बाद ब कामना ूसाद के पुऽ िशविसंह ने अ� दर से ब� दक िनकालने क� धमक�ु द� तब आप सभी जीप से वापस आये ”

¶22

After holding enquiry charge No. 3 was found
to be proved and the disciplinary authority,
taking note of the enquiry, independently
examined the material and after holding the
petitioner guilty punished him with the penalty
of stoppage of two annual grade increments with
cumulative effect and salary, other than the
subsistence allowance of the period of

¶23

CWP 1749/96 [4]

¶24

suspension, was also withheld vide order Anx. 6
dt. 17/07/1990. The appeal preferred by him
under Rule 23 was rejected by a detailed and
reasoned order upholding the penalty inflicted
upon him vide order Anx. 7 dt. 06/06/1991 and

¶25

the review was also rejected that too after
assigning detailed reasons vide order Anx. 8 dt.
15/07/1995.

¶26

Counsel for petitioner submits that the

¶27

charges levelled against the petitioner as also
against two Assistant Sub Inspectors namely;
Kalyan Singh and Abdul Mazid are for the self
same incident in regard to which the report was
lodged on 08/01/1989 but Kalyan Singh, Assistant
Sub Inspector has been punished with penalty of
stoppage of one annual grade increment without

¶28

cumulative effect vide order Anx. 9 dt.
08/06/1989 and Abdul Mazid, Assistant Subject

¶29

Inspector has been punished with the penalty of
censure only vide order Anx. 10 dt. 19/06/1989
while the petitioner has been punished with

¶30

penalty of stoppage of two annual grade
increments with cumulative effect after holding

¶31

enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules vide order
Anx. 6 dt. 17/07/1990 and such action of the

¶32

respondents inflicting major penalty upon the
petitioner is arbitrary and violative of

¶33

CWP 1749/96

¶34

[5]

¶35

principle of natural justice.

¶36

Counsel for petitioner further submits that
when the persons similarly situated are,
required to be treated similarly, inflicting
major penalty upon the petitioner for the self
same incident is in violative of Rule 14 of the
Rules, 1958 as also of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

¶37

In support of his submissions, counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
reported in WLR 1994 (Raj.)117 as also of the
Apex Court reported in (1996)10 SCC 409.

¶38

In reply to writ petition filed by

¶39

respondents, it has been averred that the main
allegation was against the petitioner and even
in the course of enquiry, it is the petitioner
who was specifically named by the complainant

¶40

Kamta Prasad (PW-1) who deposed that the
petitioner entered his house along with other
persons and he was under intoxication and after
beating them, pulled the members of the family
out of their house and dragged them while
putting them into jeep. At the same time, Smt.
Kailashi Devi (WP-5)wife of the complainant
whose statements were also recorded, while
deposed against the petitioner but also made
passing reference against the Assistant Sub

¶41

CWP 1749/96

¶42

[6]

¶43

Inspectors for the alleged incident but as they
were not involved in entering their house and
pulling them out, taking note of the incident
which took place, the disciplinary authority
inflicted penalty of stoppage of two annual
grade increments upon the petitioner with
cumulative effect. However, penalty of stoppage
of one grade increment without cumulative effect
was inflicted against Assistant Sub Inspector
against whom passing reference was made vide
order Anx. 9 dt. 08/06/1989 and another
Assistant Sub Inspector, whose presence
appeared to be doubtful, was punished with
penalty of censure vide order Anx. 10 dt.
19/06/1989. Counsel submits that for the nature
of charges levelled and found proved against the
petitioner as also against two Assistant Sub
Inspectors, the disciplinary authority has
independently examined the record of enquiry and
after recording good and sufficient reasons,
inflicted penalty upon the delinquents of which
reference has been made (supra).

¶44

I have heard counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.

¶45

Charge No. 3, which has been found to be
proved against the petitioner as already
referred to (supra) is based on the statements

¶46

CWP 1749/96

¶47

[7]

¶48

recorded of PW-1-Kamta Prasad; PW-3-Rajesh
Kumar; PW-4-Smt. Ramji Devi and PW-5-Smt.
Kailashi Devi who deposed in their statements
during the course of enquiry that the petitioner
Heera Lal, who was under intoxication, along
with others entered their house and started
bearing them with Lathi and pulled the members
of the family out of their house and dragged
them in the mud while putting them into jeep. So
far as the petitioner is concerned, his presence

¶49

and act after the statements were recorded,
remained uncontroverted. Since no contrary
evidence came on record, the disciplinary
authority, after holding the petitioner guilty
for charge No. 3, punished him with the penalty
of stoppage of two annual grade increments with
cumulative effect but at the same time so far as
the Assistant Sub Inspectors Kalyan Singh is
concerned, the wife of the complainant Smt.
Kailash Devi (PW-5) made passing reference of
his presence and deposed that he has also beaten
the members of the family and, as such, the
disciplinary authority punished him with the
penalty of stoppage of one annual grade
increment without cumulative effect vide order
Anx. 9 dt. 08/06/1989 and so far as the other
Assistant Sub Inspector Abdul Mazid, whose

¶50

CWP 1749/96

¶51

[8]

¶52

presence itself was not deposed by either of
them but on the basis of material came on

¶53

record, the disciplinary authority punished him
with penalty of censure only vide order Anx. 10
dt. 19/06/1989. The allegations may be for the
self same incident of 08/01/1989 but the
charges, which were examined and found to be
proved by the disciplinary authority in regard
to all the three delinquents including the
petitioner were different and, as such, after
examining the record of the enquiry, looking to
the act and misconduct of the respective
delinquent, the disciplinary authority inflicted
penalty upon them vide orders Anx. 6, 9 and 10
respectively.

¶54

If the act of the delinquents for the self
same incident is different and found proved by
the enquiry officer and accepted by the
disciplinary authority, penalty in commensurate
with their act of misconduct has been inflicted
upon the delinquents, the petitioner and the
other two delinquents Assistant Sub Inspectors
cannot be said to be similarly situated in
regard to the charge found proved against them.
So far as the judgments, which the counsel for
petitioner has place reliance are concerned, the
same have no application in the facts of the

¶55

CWP 1749/96

¶56

[9]

¶57

instant case.

¶58

Consequently, this Court finds no substance
in the writ petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.

¶59

[AJAY RASTOGI], J.

¶60

Raghu-1749-CW-1996-final.doc

Heera Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Lal v. State

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

Sajjan Singh Rajawat Vs Raj.Khadi and Gram Udhyog Board

Sayed Arshad Ali Naqvi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajeev Rahar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Shahina Jahid Vs Raj. Co- Operative Dairy Fed. and Anothe

Hari Prasad Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Vaskha Singh Vs State