High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging punishment orders involving grade increment stops and censure. The court held proceedings followed Rule 17 of CCA, findings were not perverse, and since petitioner was near superannuation, orders did not materially affect benefits.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned punishment orders upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 1249312008
Suresh Chand Upadhyay, Son Of Shri Krishan Dutt Upadhyay, 87, Seth Bhag Chand Soni Nagar, Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
| 2. | Krishi haw^$,Jaipur -%sd |
Pant |
|---|---|---|
| 3. 4. |
l.Ji"h -.> gedeut~ Director, Agriculture Extension, Ajrnej -j- 4,--- 2 The Assistant Director, Agriculture Extensron, |
zila |
| Parishad, Ajmer Jveep- ,. >dll" - 9 -I. -ar ,..w. ss* ,7.i " 3% ,. %-> $L,T* *'' tk 3.., .rz_ -t~. ----Respond a-.,- i+;... ..I,.-"c-E. d |
ents | |
| For For |
.:- ',?._yj5;_A'!:i**-t.,.-.- '6::%.:L;s%> ".A** - 3 i?.,r$;>-,Y$SIS Petitioner(s) :-::ss :.-'."h,~:$Prahladt~~n.g i ndS;di;..s--a;sz +a,6_E..b_ <':,a_-?fq_ &~.-:::iqzc&r.*.s Respond ent(s) ;2f;;~~2a$ddu;,C,$1id d GC .x**T,."I*>a ** ..r...rat?.@> .-? .2y!?sY,fP: --.-*:.:.r,r-. **_>if:.&_**+'si;x:* -= |
HON'BLE MR. JU AKASH SHARMA
29/08/2018
2. The petitioner was holding the post of Agriculture Supervisor. In the first case, charge alleges the conducf of the petitioner in not receiving the transfer order by which he was transferred from headquarters. The allegation was that when the transfer order was sent by registered post the same was also refused. The chargesheet was admittedly served to the petitioner but he has chosen not to file any reply of the charge-sheet. In the second case also f while the charge-sheet > has;issiiedi ~B .- <eel$ a- wasmot :+ -* filed. ?il "Q ' 4 &tf-? 3. Several .opportunities ., % were granted 'to the ,petitioner to file -. - e- *,gdk reply and;-,ultimately the Disciplinary Authorityi *::took into .?,;+ . " i %':-- i ' consideration the report before him and examined bfe entire record and passed an a minor penalty of stopping one grade order of censure in another.
5. The entire gamut of argument of the petitioner is that he has not been given fair opportunity and there has been a nonapplication of mirid by the Disciplinary Authority before passing of the order. It is his submission that when he preferred an appeal, the Appellate Authority has not examined its contents.
6. Learned counsel's contention is that the Appellate Authority must examine the contents of the appeal independently of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. Proceedings in all three cases were initiated under the Rule 17 of the CCA . ?: laid down by sthe , +, Apex Court from _f ".,. ./ role of th-ekppellate Authority and the 0-& a with riaard to the prceedings laid penalties. A proced by the Disciplinary Authority is allowed -sheet issued under Section 17 of the CC linquent request for personal hearing, t uthority is required to provide him an opportun other cases he has to look into the recor n thereto and pass necessary orders a tions as placed by the petitioner in his re 9. I find that t II the three cases, .. *. has examined the redfa~@e&:~~~$mind a^-*)^-** I Plr .=.v-+* and passed the necessary orders. Thus, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the approach adopted by the Disciplinary Authority.
the order of the Disciplinary Authority have not committed any error. In the third case where by punishment of one increment was stopped without cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have also looked into the reply and passed the orders. However, so far as the personal hearing is concerned, since the petitioner himself chose not to appear in spite of being called, no fault can be attributed to the Disciplinary W F Authority and the ~~~efia$e'ukhont.i 'B", ; b.- q p ii -% -. "'$$ t. 8 ' 4. CI,iri #"'b 11. In theseGacts ; ..g . and circumstances, I do notLfind any reason to f J -. P ,>*a, interfere with'the orders impugned. That apart, it ?%aticed . . that iv 4-4 the pett~oner attained superannuation and the orders passed being in the nature of ty did n ot in any manner materially effect t benefits. In these circumstances, no i . The writ petition is devoid of merit and
KASH SHARMA),]
MohitR107
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Disciplinary Authority provided fair opportunity to the petitioner for hearing.
Whether the Appellate Authority independently examined the appeal contents.
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to interfere with the orders given he was near superannuation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Chand Upadhyay
The State Of Rajasthan
Akash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
