In service attrition writ petition, petitioner challenged penalty of grade stoppage imposed for alleged negligence in preventing illicit liquor tragedy. High Court found no infirmity in impugned orders and dismissed petition, refusing to substitute findings of disciplinary and appellate authorities.
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. 8650/2018
Jai Narayan Son Of Shri Daya Ram Poonar , Presently Residing At 1-C-238, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur- 342005
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Aswal, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
02/08/2018
The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the penalty order dt.11.09.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner has also assailed the order dt.18.02.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority and further order dt.30.10.2017 passed by the Governer dismissing the review petition of the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that in the charge-sheet dt.29.06.2012 four charges were levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply of the petitioner appointed Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the
(2 of 6)
[CW-8650/2018]
enquiry and submitted his report dt.13.02.2015. The Enquiry Officer found that charge the Nos. 1 and 3 were proved against the petitioner and charge Nos. 2 and 4 were not found to be proved. The petitioner was given a show cause- notice along with enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation dt.31.07.2015.
The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and recorded his independent reasoning that due to illicit liquor consumed by certain people, they lost their lives and the petitioner had miserably failed to discharge his duties. The relevant order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is reproduced hereunder:-
“tkap vf/kdkjh ls izkIr tkap fjiksVZ dk Jh es?koky ls izkIr vH;kosnu ,oa c;kuksa ,oe~ vU; nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd Jh es?koky] vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny] tks/kiqj ds in ij fnukad 1508-2009 ls 19-01-2011 rd inLFkkfir jgsA Jh es?koky vius dk;Z{ks= esa voS/k 'kjkc fuekZ.k] Hk.Mkj.k] ifjogu ,oa foØ; ds laca/k esa izHkkoh fujks/kkRed dk;Zokgh gsrq vius xqIr lwpuk ra= dks fodlfr ugha dj ikus rFkk {ks= esa x’r jkf= ukdkcUnh ds vHkko esa voS/k fLizV dh vken dks jksdus esa vlQy jgs gS ,oa ukdkcUnh rFkk /kkoksa dh izHkkoh dk;Z;kstuk ugha cukus ls dkj.k ftys esa fnukad18-01-2011 o 19-01-2011 dks 'kjkc nq[kfUrdk dh ?kVuk ?fVr gqbZ]ftlds fy, Jh es?koky ftEesnkj gSA Jh es?koky }kjk ekg tuojh 2011 esa fnukad 20-01-2011 rd dksbZ ukdkcUnh ugha dh xbZ gSA lEHkor% blh vof/k esa {ks= esa voS/k fLizV dh vken gqbZ vkSj ukdkcUnh ugha gksus ds dkj.k mldh vken dks jksdk ugha tk ldkA mlh fLizV ls voS/k 'kjkc dk fuekZ.k gqvk vkSj fnukad 18-012011 ,oa 19-01-2011 dks 'kjkc nq[kkfUrdk ?kfVr gqbZA mDr lk{;ksa] lEHkkxh; vk;qDr dh fjiksVZ ,oa xokg Jh dekyqn~nhu f[kyth ds c;kuksa ls izekf.kr
(3 of 6)
[CW-8650/2018]
gksrk gSA ;fn vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk lrr jkf= x’r] ukdkcUnh ,oa /kkoksa dh dk;Zokgh djokbZ x;h gksrh rks voS/k fLizV dh {ks= esa vken dks jksdk tk ldrk Fkk vkSj mDr ?kVuk ?kfVr ugha gks ikrhA blds vykok ;fn ml {ks= esa izHkkoh xqIr lwpuk ra= izHkkoh gksrk rks voS/k fLizV dh vken ds ckn Hkh mlls voS/k 'kjkc ds fuekZ.k] ifjogu ,oa foØ; ds Lrj ij dgha Hkh lwpuk feyus ij ml pSu dks rksM+k tkdj 'kjkc nq[kkfUrdk dks gksus ls jkdk tk ldrk FkkA Jh es?koky dks vkjksi la[;k&1 o 3 ds ifjizs{; esa ftEesnkj Bgjkuk mfpr gS D;ksafd vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs ;g mudh inh; ftEesnkjh ,oa drZO; dk fgLlk gSA vr% vkjksi la[;k&1 o 3 izekf.kr gksrs gSaA
vr% jkT;iky egksn; izLrqr izdj.k esa Jh t; ukjk;.k es?koky] rRdkyhu vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh ¼fuyfEcr½] vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny] eq[;ky; vfrfjDr vkcdkjh vk;qDr] t;iqj ds fo:) vf/kjksfir vkjksi la[;k ,d o rhu izekf.kr gksus ij mudh ,d okf"kZd osruo`f) lap;h izHkko ls jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;s tkus ds ,rn~}kjk vkns’k iznku djrs gS ,oa bUgsa fuyEcu vof/k esa fn, x, fuokZg HkRrs ds Hkqxrku ds vykok vU; dksbZ ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA”
The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the penalty order dt.11.09.2015 filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has found that the explanation of the petitioner was not proper and the petitioner had failed to perform his duties in diligent manner and due to lackness on his part, the illegal spirit was imported in the area which was under control of the petitioner and the petitioner further failed to take action against such persons who had indulged themselves in manufacturing of the illicit liquor.
The Appellate Authority further found that the petitioner had failed to use the setup/machinary of collecting the information of transportation and sale of illicit liquor and due to all these acts
(4 of 6)
[CW-8650/2018]
huge tragedy had taken place in which many people have lost their lives. The Appellate Authority did not find any justification to interfere with order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner filed review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1958 before the Governor and the Reviewing Authority has also dismissed the review petition of the petitioner vide order dt.30.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were other co-delinquents who were also issued charge-sheet but they all have been exonerated either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the matter of imposition of punishment, two different yardsticks cannot be adopted and if the charges are similar, no different punishments can be awarded.
Learned counsel has submitted that the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the several authorities in past and even during the alleged incident, role of the petitioner was appreciated from time to time as reflected in different reports.
This Court finds that the charges levelled against the petitioner were of serious nature and the petitioner was Excise Officer while working as Assistant Excise Officer, Jodhpur (Rural), the incident had ocurred on 18.01.2011 to 19.01.2011 at Jodhpur and Pali where several people have lost their lives because of consumption of illicit liquor.
This Court on careful consideration of material placed on record in respect of other co-delinquents, finds that one Rajveer Singh was the Police Inspector, who was issued a charge-sheet for taking disciplinary action against him. It was alleged that the said Rajveer Singh had failed to discharge his duties as he has not
(5 of 6)
[CW-8650/2018]
registered the case immediately and further due to publication of news in the news papers and electronic media, the image of the Police was tarnished. The order dt.18.08.2015 (Annex.-19), was passed by the Appellate Authority and since other three codelinquents working in the Police Department were exonerated by the State Government, the said Rajveer Singh was also given clean chit.
This Court finds that the said order exonerating one Shri Rajveer Singh cannot help to the petitioner as the role of the Police in respect of offences which are committed under the Excise Act, does not have any connection.
This Court finds that the alleged misconduct which has been proved against the petitioner reveals his working in the Excise Department and if hooch tragedy had taken place and illicit liquor was found to be manufactured and sold in the area which was under the control of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot take any advantage by referring two orders passed in respect of persons working in the Police Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed order dt.22.05.2015 passed in respect of one Shri Motiram (SubInspector in the Police Department) who was also given a chargesheet for dereliction of his duty and his appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dt.22.05.2015. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority had again taken a similar stand as has been taken in the case of other co-delinquents namely Shri Devi Singh (Sub-Inspector), Sawai Singh (Constable), and Maniram (Constable), working in the Police Department, and exonerated by the Police Department.
(6 of 6)
[CW-8650/2018]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred order dt.15.12.2014 passed in respect of one Shri Jagdish working in the Police Department wherein the Appellate Authority had given a reference of other two Constables who were exonerated of the charge levelled against them.
This Court finds that if the charges levelled against the petitioner are distinct and separate, no anology can be drawn in respect of similar treatment to be given to the petitioner.
This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inida cannot substitute the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the findings which are recorded against the delinquent. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is very serious in nature and all the authorities i.e. Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority have found the petitioner guilty.
This Court finds that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered at all the stages and as such the Court does not find any infirmity in the orders impugned before this Court.
The writ petition does not have any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
A.kumar/46
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can substitute findings of disciplinary and appellate authorities in a service attrition matter.
Whether there is any infirmity in the penalty order imposing stoppage of grade increment for failure to prevent illicit liquor tragedy.
Whether analogy with treatment accorded to police co-delinquents in similar incidents can benefit the petitioner.
Jai Narayan Son Of Shri Daya Ram Poonar
Principal Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel
Finance Secretary, Department Of Finance Excise
Commissioner, Excise Department
Deputy Secretay, State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel
Ashok Kumar Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
