Allowed

Amrit Ram Raidas v. State Dep of Personnel Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2019CW/6679/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned punishment order for two petitioners in a joint land acquisition enquiry. The court held that the disciplinary authority acted perversely by punishing the petitioners while exonerating superior officers for identical charges, violating principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of compulsory retirement and withholding of pension were quashed; petitioners are entitled to pension, gratuity, and interest at 9.5% per annum.

Amrit Ram Raidas Vs State Dep of Personnel Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPBJW
(.. .
<+d :>
. -4
.. qp ,.'4 I S.B. Civil Writs No. 5892/2011
&p $; 4
i
Lakhama Ram Meena

¶2

Versus

¶3

State Of Raj knd Ori
1 , Connected With.
. '. T,% 1 .; .7
,, .. S:J3:ri\iil .., 'writs No. 6679b011. .-,
? >-- -., -2 , u
Amrit Ram . . , ,.jXai.das
'? '4 'I "
y'., . 31 ' :.:I -.-:-{Fetitioner I
w '*
.**we'' .,*3&. . 'i
k!+% Versus .
State Dep Of .Personnel Ors he,,% ,,, .
I: ;. .,' '.. :
I I b . ... , 3 .s; ;.., I' t .(.'L. "rW,. ? t -. .. ~ Li, , - ., . * ..., t.:> .,: -"'. : : st-. < ,' 't i ... :‘. . . 3 ----Respondent
,;' c. ,, ?,,'J C..."i; ?,. $'""4,., . ' ' 3 a+$.- '.ice. , * -
." ,~ 5- , %, '. -,
For Petitioner(s) o-' ,,. iu. - Q~.~arn . , Kish:8,n?$iharma
, .
For Respondent(s) i:? ,, -.$ ?*,MjE.Am.it ..., *<, Ku<m'i.-n . *. ,,behalf of Mr.Raj
i
I <v :<?. . .rq j-sham, .- . 6.- s 'r ,.. . A. , , ..fi A,G,,G:t ,x tr
'X:pM . ',.- riB.i,&AvaIstE.i4, ~ ., >... ;.. A G C

¶4

Judsment Reserved on .... ,>:. , ,. ,, : . ' : 'O2/8%/2019 "> . r .i ,. ,. Judgment pronounced oh. : .,,aPt/O%/2Of9 ) 'IV "'. h+gL.i.iCxe,Gr ,, **_,-w:_* p: 'fC k-7.- .1 q, .*,: 3 Fqt9 . <.& ? ,: *> - %.. *?.% ' -^; .;., .j?i , .+.;$ . . : .:+ 4 I. ~6th these cases were heard together as they relate to joint I enquiry conducted by the respondents against 14 delinquents I while charge-sheets have been issued to the petitioners individually and different punishment orders have been passed. 1. The o,rder of punishment is of dated-11.4.2011. I 2. Brief facts which need to be noted for the purpose are that the.,. land . . . acquisition proceedings were conducted for the purpose i

¶5

[CW-5892/2011]

¶6

(2 of 12)

¶7

I of Bisalpur Prqjeci: and the areas which were falling in the blasting zone were I equired to be acquired for the purpose. W-hile notification u der Sec.4 of the Act was issued on 16.7.1988, r petitioner La hama Ram Meena f (SBCW Pet. No.5892/11) was posted as LD in the Irrigation Department and performing the i" duties with the Land Acquisition Officer of Bisalpur Project, the petitioner nirit Ram Raidas (SBCW Pet. No.6679/2011) was t - 1 holding the post S tl of- z?, .Land. .? .E .:Revenue: anspector. - , . .% fi Since separate ..- '2 .:I 2' charges hae++.,$eh leveled against both the .petitioners, the . $9 " I' ,: discussion;el ting to each petitioner is being done sepa,cately. ?" .d .. ** -9, -,

¶8

S.B.CPVIL WRIT,..I?ET. N8.5892/2011 I , .$ .:".< P-(".A<:; -: w '. "i...

¶9

¶10

3. After thg notificatio+ni:de6;ec~~4::f,f-he . ., , , e141 - %:, . . .% . i ,.,. iL Act, proceedings of .,' , acquisition were start'ed g2 ; OQ -,#" $~~~:,$;~~i-,9;;a, 4 6 1,9:92;:and,ended I...L on 17.10.1992 'A?* -+ , . ? , .:? and Land Acquisition ffi.s:~assedam:award ***,** ;. 7:' .;%ij7:.L:. . r ::?:F ? ::.? .. ;. % .,. s >,48F,,,? .P ;r on the same day after takinguaqproval fr$the~~~~ilectpr t i .and the higher authorities. L.; .! 3 .. , ** :. .: i The estimater was sub@itt@d$ $; by . .=.$he .' I ': Executive Engineer on 18.9.1992.. A charge-slieetL&Ya~. **e++.l.g:5.vs** r . ju'.r:f;,., z 3 . :. .a 5 is sued.!:^^. , : :, L?,:;:, '5% : ". ,.>.&.. r the petitioner wherein $5 . > $.:.& ., 5 "Two chargeso were le$,eled %r : ,A.ct :zz,,, iJa:g.a.i>n:st q..:b.w ,a:-Y ?%? the >,=.4:k22 ibetitioner. The Enquiry ** A .. . --A$ Officer exonerated the"pgt~~29baF;;:firga+;first charge but held guilty for the second harge+~~KKa.li[$gqP~~~tereof %$ -+ .* was that file of . rl .. .! " House No.76 was maintained by the petitioner bearing number 75/92 and the petitioner who was LDC, had not enclosed the parcha Maukar Report, although there was no constructed house and there was only temporary construction of house no.76 showing as Khasra ,No.1631 admeasuring 1170 sq.meter and also showing the area to be having trees, and wrongfully compensation was awarded to one Sheoji S/o Nanda Meena and was thus guilty of not placing ,on record the Parcha Mauka report. Although in the

¶11

¶12

I enquiry, it w P s found that concerned Sheoji is not entitled to 'receive any r ompensation. The Enquiry Officer has submitted report that hl use no.76 was actually situated in khasra no.1616 I which was a charagah landr and not khasra no.1631 which is a i 'abadi land'. be has also stated that Patwari had placed parcha Mauka report in the file but it is apparent that said report was removed frorri the file with ill-motive and since the file used to remain with the ."^petitioner,+ .:$ :+ 2.. ." the- nqiiry... . t . ;-,-i2 Officer has held the "; :p petitioner Ram as guilty of removing the site plan map and hel'pipg 'the concerned person to receive ''compensation .8 - .r ' . ,#$% ',. treain~~ghe. land to be abadi land while it was 'charagah land' I 1 where 'bada' was contructed$::~~~~..,.~ ; 4 ,,'Wk ,* r' :" .>... I Counsel /for 2. . . x . the statement of the.p;etitiner.su.bmit~ d I.. .% j2i,Y.,~h Jfi- t=;W that .$ I ,. .. charge leveled against.-th:e .L ;. ,,A ;p.etition.er,i: ;yr'IY.kk FGi, , % l.:.s-j5:~c:.!..i on:ly to the effect that the 7. ". * .. ,p ,I ' & a- . .. ,-. petitioner had failed to-,.:pla~;e'~~on:? c,o,&dthe site plan (Naksha I d,,. : ><,, $%. - **:q7:$$y;.;;h%s** " # .,">& i"..I".<$$"q .' . Mauka. report)l in the fild &hil&t~.ei A li , **_i",:._** ~~q&'r~ :. .? Officer has reached to I _9._ the conclusion, that the ~sk$j$~a~kaiwas ,., _r'p a_ **5ii i** placed in the file but **_L?_** had been wrorgly removed +,6.g~~;2z~;z+c,~~~~isfi. by:the.. z **_-A._** ~etitioner **_.:,&?_** Lakhma Ram. Thus **z GY** $, C.C:P': ! .... a **_s_** -he submits that the p'etiti~n~er; %!+ **:..,*?,f2Twe** !% **!t h,as** **_I_ %** been held guilty and punished ~~..#, >;" ! ,;! ((2 .. i . .'.&. ,, _'<t;>_ with the punishment of c6mpu~s.ory.~~~etirement .A +,. 3Llar6r-t* , .. , - on the basis of allegation which was npg. -. . , : :L pa3d..;:oi statement ,$ .. ." a. '. r. of allegation leveled against him in the charge-sheet and petitioner had no occasion to defend himse'lf for the said allegation.

¶13

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the presumption drawn by the Enquiry Officer of the petitioner having removed the documents from the file with ill-motive is based on surmises and conjectures and there is no specific statement of any witness or any document to reach to such a conclusion.

¶14

5. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as Disciplinary Authority is concerned, it has punished the petitioner on different ground holding that the petitioner had not placed on record the site plan/map in file no.75/92 which resulted in compensation being awarded for temporary construction made in Charagah land. Thus the Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the findings J& .,*o.f ,! .kuir %A Officer .&. ,and!? $P +,,a' has punished the ,, r petitioner for a,ilegations *+. which are part of charge-sheet. 3 However, the same were not proved by the Enquiry officer who..ha$ held the **7'<-_** e.9 **I.** ,+"---, * ***** .f petition'er~guilty for a different allegation. Thus the situation arise whethk'r the Enquiry Officer:-.;bas,, .:held the petitioner guilty of= , -- removing the v~hile,~.tbe 1 **..** .. . Disciplinary ,I. Authority . **_J_** . . has held him guilty .of~,"~t-~la~~n~~the~ :.+- .i;,,.+, ~~:e.%z,ic;;:, **_q5_** - -.+ - **,*.;$.::** sarqgd'ocument on file. In ".& .,,>, **:w$'** "(. , ,L.,* .,., ' / **r ;6* ' ' .i the circumstances, cou~~s&ubmit-s~ ,,,?, > **%k-.7+2v:e.=>** < k.. $. , t. %,,.% '..* - 2.: ,z tha&the &$f$ petitioner ought to ?;$ . ... ,;: ,$, ,..-A>,.+:, r+' I,.. *i re **",$,2:;,>:>,,&:+_ G:** .' -,:, , : :- have been exonerated frm'$be?dhdre,;;? t: iiiidd %; 10 $ .' . ;p '% 2 $$ 2. t v &$;^$8 3.: i. -3 :; > p 2 $>i g : C r.'f$. '!.1., $ : ;: 6. Upon eamining,t,$:~~~~,ntents',of . ? 1, ,. ?.-. J +.-. A,.?.P ygb,t2a.,7 -,, c ;,>, ; *yA . ';, .?:-,- .*4 enquiry report and thereafter the contenis of orderj.pas'~~~d 'by Disciplinary Authority $.$; +;: <+-* **$#*,, **'f?:..-$*** ; **_3_** -> '> : : ', dated 11.4.201 1, I find thi3&i~~s2ijjq;LN. officer has given specific finding'that there was a.site .ii -.% ,;plan plaqed .. , 3 in the file by Tehsildar. Further he states that the petitioner was bent upon ,. to remove the documents from file. Thus the Enquiry officer 'does not hold the petitioner guilty of not placing the document in file.

¶15

The Disciplinary Authority on the other hand differs from the report of Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty of not placing on record the factual aspects and not placing the site plan. In the circumstance, I find that the Disciplinary Authority has

¶16

differed from the conclusion of Enquiry Officer and was therefore required to give a notice of disagreement to the petitioner, but-the same was never served upon the petitioner and punishment order has been passed. In the case of Puniab National Bank Vs. Kuni Behari Misra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84, the Apex Court held that the Disciplinary Authority oblige to serve a notice of disagreement to the concerned delinquent before taking a decision when the concerned-;t,,isrfplinaryh % ys .* u~~oi:ty:, does not accept the ">& ,<,, ,: .* **>ld* finding of nquir ., .!.&., Officer. Keeping in view above, I find that the c .. k' h * 3 order of -p.u,nishment of compulsory retirement passed by the .; 2t "5 :%A Disciplnary Authority, therefore, deserves to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Th.g;p!.etiCioner will be entitled to receive -.-. . ,.- ; -;. ", 2;. $ all consequential benefits-i:nhjd.ing t. C >.l. .. ..Y, ?L s . , . . :aeGwal: **_*._ pqy* < ?* and allowance, and ,- b, ni r <* :I. .,. "??l%, :A":' <'." I* . ? .' 'i .: 9 ,. 2' .. l L.. p ri nci pie of no work ah:dz'noip2iy tf$ ffic.+3yg wou T: . .w..;. @:a pb.tg' -t.T%,$:;4;& ,.> ,,, .; =:; . A?. . a-g - + c; $ . - < , >,?it-* ;;$$:<;$$$&"f; 3;.zi?, 3 ,,y$.lpa ;s' . _A&&_* J"'" . ;.: .".. -.& 9 g$$,,d: ., IJ;. $2,%f' .$: 2 9 ,"-+. 2 ,$., , -, '. .tF<2?;;? ;;, F >4 ~d 1 >;$;&'& ;?$$p ": .;:.: i;.,"". A'c,$ p .x?

¶17

. . ' 3 :.. ;,> 2;: 4 4 g .> " , 4: ' +* +. . ' 7, I e " ,,i.^' L .xh . i'? '. "X r;.e ' I. ; .,,.?$$>. <$ :,,? -.: /^tw, 8. : Thes order dated:;-.fik:.@$&u .$ &.&My&+&;7d-s :,.>; .,h&*-:. : >%- ??., been passed by the , : % , ..,? 7 3' ' . "3.i :.p,T.:: el. ( L DisciplinBry uthorit~~$ni's6in,fthe **~~~~.;-,~~,r:.:::-p~** lp,efitibper -.t for with-holding of "k? it 5 .* ,.: ." - .. 'b '- ,i 9 $?f;;, "- , 10O0/0 'pension as well ,a$+,:hi:sZ%;garatui-ty. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed , , o.~~t~~~Q,a~~~th.ecQart:ge ., : a i) leveled against the 5 petitioner is identical to the charge leveled against the Superior Officer: namely Sh.0.P.Kanodiya. While Sh.O.P.Kanodiya was exonerated of the charge leveled against him, the petitioner was held guilty for charge no.3 which was found to be fully proved and charge nos.6 & 9 have been found to be partially proved.

¶18

Charge 1-10.3" leveled* against the petitioner was of having not calculated the amount of compensation properly and thereby "

¶19

(6 of 12) [CW-5892/2011]

¶20

releasing the higher amount in favour of one Satya Narain S/o lagdish Maheshwari, owner of plot no.188 situated at Bisalpur. It is submitted that as the amount of Rs.6290/- has already been released on 30.3.1990 being 80% of the total amount and while releasing the remaining amount, interest could not have been calculated on the total amount but ought to have been calculated on the amount which was finalized over and above the amount paid as 80%. Further, */.$ allsgation wa+s with regard to having "., ' =' ,- 1 .,. a. ^ 2- released the .o.m.pensation : " ..p.. including 12% depeciation $ *- which was required to-;,be deleted and also in regard to additional',,amount of 'G: .. ,. P% ."2- *..Rs.41937~- without praper reason. Said charge no.3 was answered by the petitioner stating that, ,Q$fiCi:al of the Irrigation Department , , ." 7 .7-:i-'; i" , - i has revised the estirri8te:and::+i6; s4 8!.q-i. *q ++, z ..e {,.+)': w,?<;not **_,. 2_** *-,& ,+y-..._ khg s4 petitioner who had *fl" I- . .., q '> * * p'" , **-3_** - ,, , .... revised the said est/mat;,:&i$d:, *7 ,7L .d Z~7z xi:, . . jiilted:+& ?. . .. &.‘: * ., LOA on 13.3.1991 :., .% -:.:. ; . - ',i! 'jc .$.ll.> .. .. 'I ,. while the acquisition pr<cge&n,gse had commenced on 22.9.1990. 9 p5"f%;ypy .: ..... **r.,.. <;y** > $, 24 . , r :q;: t.+," A::. *'. ;. It is his case that r.0..an6dia!, -. X'.E@. who was co-delinquent, 'I $4 ' + was served with charge-sheet cont'aiaifig one of the charge which f; j+8' . ; 'rt is = ., 5 ,, ., , . -.- ;< was identical of alowin~:,~~~~~~~rs&.~~n 'I ; . -. ,; **w, 15.*s* . . .hei:whole amount wrongfully, ;- c: &;i.?:.. ..; .' .:q t, however, the nui,r~:;dffi?q~:ha,s. vi :, 5vh ++-, , A ?1.. *- ; '.' e.xone;Ated him on the ground " 9 1.J r: : that the award was duly,.a,!gp~,~1,gg@.. by&he Superior Officers and, therefore, thenX.En. cou:id:;:n6t . be; ., . rc held.-guilt9 *d .% .=.p **%._** for the said charge. r '\ z 7. i

¶21

I i.

¶22

¶23

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be treated differently by the same Enquiry Officer as it had come on record that the award which the petitioner had passed was after seeking full approval from his Superior Officers which included Mr.O.P.Kanodiya, X.En. and the Collector, Tonk. Thus, there was no: occasion for holding the petitioner guilty of

¶24

releasing the whole amount of interest in favour of concerned claimant.

¶25

With regard to charge relating to not counting depreciation also, it was pointed out that another >(.En. Mr.Jitendra Kothari was served with charge-sheet in relation to the same allegation. I However, he was also exonerated on the premise of being approved by Superior Officers. So far as other two charges are concerned, counse!,foy.the . 9 7 ." 'petitioner poinked.out .. j F -a ; that charge no.6 d I could not be 1eye.led against him with regard to amaunt arrived at as the ,entkre. estimate and t.he amount calculated was prepared by .a,* I the fk!i.al of Irrigation Department who have been left out or exonerated of the charges levgl,e.d.,,I.t, k ,. has been submitted that the ,: r.. ,-$: ,.* interim -award was a)!so $~q$;pqssed. ,,: - . .. b"i .,:, <.% hinj,,,as . ; &.$ , he was not posted . i > . ... r ..: ... ,a,,. v., .r >.:; ' during, the time h.en;:~~~~'$(;.q~~~r@:waspassed. .@.? r,y Thus the *. . . ,:-:.; ? . F. 5 4 " :. 9 % ,,'. .% .' . s h I allegation #of wrngful;.,,ca~~~.$~~~og.~~ g60aI, not be put on him. !,.;L;>:< ' ; ' ;& ..b. ka?:>..,.< "1Y t;- ", ,.. .,<. i ' .A, p '7* b$. .- Moreover, the award paqsed;''by'.I , 6 the f 'pc&itioner :$.! was after taking C approval and confirmati06 g fEom" .$ $ iir n. teICollector, Tonk who had not : -5 .I .! .& L? been charge-sheeted or-:.p'u.i$sh~-. .. . A- +%A $:-:,z. .+. Z. - :.: . . .."::.* ' I . t , • .;B2* ' 4: ., v- t, .+ ,n;C* ,?*

¶26

11. -: I h,e counsel for the ?p&iLtiLo,w a!sg;submits that two different yard-sticks cannot be .a,dopggd:ib,y I .. d bvc* th:e,.uiEriquiry officer. Once the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the Superior on the ground that I the decision taken for releasing the award amount was as per the directibn issued by.the Superior Authority, and, therefore, Enquiry Officen. 'has exonerated the petitioner's Superior i.e. )(.En., the petitioner. ought to have been also exonerated as the award passed by him was after taking approval from the Superior Officer and after the file having been placed before the Collector, Tonk. The calculation process was also placed by him before his Superior

¶27

Officer and, therefore, he could not be held guilty for the said charge.

¶28

Similarly for charge no.9, counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr.O.P.Kanodiya, X.En. who was Superior Officer than the petitioner, was also served with the same charge-sheet of the same charge but has been exonerated. The Enquiry Officer has not proved the charges~~~.agari.nst:all .,.. .-%*- ., ? .... the X.En; % .. 2t' .! ,. $.,E. and ].Ens. while ,T 4 the petitiner., . ?an,d -.-. 'LDC alone have been punished. The charge ,* ,. against M'OO.P.Kanodiya, Mr.M.L.Garg and others was not found ?.< 6 6 1 proved. "However, counsel for the petitioner submits that different punishments on the same fa,@;. co,uld not haye been passed in 4 : 2% r, '. - >;* -ix.., relation to the arneallegtiofi~~ F, _..,st- .~~g~~~,~~~,,!.._ .CownseJ""'fr Y..*,+ /.; -.s..z the petitioner has f ?';g..z- ?.> ,, a C ,a ,.. +. ." % <.. _r-._ **.1 1** relied upon AIR **1984.. SC. >ZJ ,>,t* 4 ,I .r .p _c_* , ' 1.49%- ::.? . .3Lwf:e'J .. ,+ "* : ?;, .* '.I Sgwigqgar * "* . . 2 ., ,. i; ' Singh and ors. Vs. The State of Punja,b_.lan.d zs +& ?.>, FpGt.7.+f&i2 .z or* * 9 5: ~++&~sa tu-, support the aforesaid .<a-" .,. ? .,. ,: " ":.* proposition of law, he also; kc re'kies*:,S-bn .% -Fa%. fZQ3.33* ... 3 SCC 73- Rajendra f . " <" **i._** d 2, ! > .. Yadaw Vs. Skate of M.?. P' ?:F andl s; *i=i or§. , . **+.** ,. Xaunsel for the petitioner 'i ,!? '* further :subm:itted that **.7;;z_** reire$en.tatilo'n ,v :-< ,.re .= .,2,7e:-,-4 -A - : .$$ -! + the order of Enquiry I Officer was also submitted.but , @,!.v~ ,,.4%:%%>Ab :A~. , -A,. .sa,me. .. hps,not been examined by , rt L . :> %i - * * <:$; < 1. i: c.. , -'e .?. >.. ;-? .,,,e. .< .$ + the Disciplinary thity m2-=a&p+&&&~ t ." ..$$:::;: . ., ,,.,.- ?'".'. "-, c **y:** : - I~&.~&W 5J;$$4.

¶29

13. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order4mpugned dated 11.4.2011.

¶30

' .:,. 1.

¶31

' I have heard counsel for the parties and find that the Enquiry offiber has committed a serious perversity' in adopting two yardsticks in expnerating the Superior Officers, named above for I the sam'e charges on the ground that the award had been given approval by the Superior Officer over and above the X.En. The

¶32

contents .. .. of the charges leveled against Mr.O.P.Kanodiya were identical to that of petitioner so far as charge nos.3 & 9 -are concerned. In the circumstances, two different findings could not ! have been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and such report prepared ought to have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority and has to be rejected on the ground of non-application of mind.

¶33

Having , sajd ,. %- so, this court also finds that all the Officers who 'P .A were invol.v;ed3 in approval of the award, have been exon,erated by ;- . yty, &&+L-. the E'nqQiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority h'as also exonerated them. In Sengara Sing h's caje,(supira), it has been observed $% ... -J: &-;-;-$ $,%,; ; k x*zz, %&:-t 't ,~~~?T cS&h, .,-* ,F, ' J, $+ . : , ?I ,$'.&-:A 59 . $<.i 4,s I under:' '. k 3 ,& :.;2z.-;$3$ $.;,:P':j +,-. , cr-f$g",. .q<>&r&: <%r 3 Gc:;i %, .(i3. n. . Y . . ' i "C - g : Te<g %- -. G-7% . %<;is bk** yp ,&..; ;.;p&.. 2 ?-j: y~,.?.? ;,$$ , ;; ,- ;'4 **_;;p;kzr5;.5? -7_ 4 **.*c> * 3 9'. ! ,* ....&* :& &," J.*<** **v~.:** ?" **$+$:->;3: ;T:Y* f~," ,. < ,, .+ , * , **3;,."!; ..'e <,..K . : . " ,!$L ., .< , . ,*q:?,** A .z, *y 3 r $ '9 . . . . . . . . Now if tlzej'idss@$plpe z .A-e ...:. .+*$'- ... - :, .of ~$:t!&i$ " ." ., ' number of personnel F C I, e.4 * i. 'A' amongst dismissed perso~~~~~~~~$.p~~~ndo@dor .< ! ..: .3 , > '3 $. . . > .. .< overlooked and after . "., " * .4.- ' ., ?.. d ,+ : -: 3. ,."..<, withdrawing the crinzinal cases cigacst them, they could be reinstated, we , t.? < see no justification in treat& ihe$resjnt. , % . *. appellants diResently without .. .- pointing out how they wese t;$k~i$$i .. -.- . : .; '..< o&"101ge .$erious nisconduct or the '% degree of indiscipline ?..I jn.Atllel:rd ,. **$sws.~~~~~~~..I~~I E-.** compared to those : who were reinstated. >$spondd1:-*:failed :- .> .. , , to eg@'&n to the Court the .: ;. , i ; ;$ a< distinguishing - .. featureshg:$~d,iher.$ore ,,$ <;-j:'g$&~$&>&? " ,,4.~F:e: -:.:/g .<&&?&d<.f: *$,?. < :' * -6 I% .,:s<sf 4.s@f~fied in putting all of _ I them in same bracket. . . . . . ..

¶34

In Rajendra Yadav's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶35

U U

¶36

\ 8. We have gone through the inquiry report placed bebre us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Patbak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak. It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, thougl~ the tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry, The charge levelled against Arjuiz Patllak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both appellants and

¶37

other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same - ihcident. After having found that Arj~m Pathak had a Inore serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was . inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punislmlent of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained.

¶38

The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim eqkality of treatment, if they can establish - discrimination wh.ilg ,. . .. &oshkpirnishnieilt . when, allaf them ,- $* i. .. are involved in the sane 'incident. Parity anlong co-delinquents -illas ,..also to be maintained,!hlen punishment is being imposed. Punishnlent shb$d not be w* .,, disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents ,who .w<34&c. ,f are'ij@ies to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authosity cannot irnpose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser h"::+l ,,'''.<, punishnlent for serious .~ffences , **~~nd.~.stringel~t~~,punishment** ,~,' for lesser oEences. . , **_../- $4_** > , _A_ .,! ,' %*+.T-3$.;'$, . < 'i";, , J* .-'ex d, ":'* ...,, : <%+ ;$ :. z..** .,- .&$' > :tA''a' J .+ .. .s o sc . >..3 $.$.z.* &>;;; . ; : >,-.,.. . 4 2'+.;* %,," j 3" 2 b.:,, + : r p -,t 4;:" "%C b I . .i ' " , "2 . >,:i: 2 ,. .. , j 2". ;.,;z,&;: ..31; 1' a FL,:$~$;~~;.. '&;:,Zr>; b. * .> ..T '<, **_-9._** :*= **'YP** _4*.9_ **r** ' **_7_** .*, ..* **yrrr"** _d"_ .& **&6.** _4_ f:f'.;$: ,. 10. The principle stated-.abo~e?&. **_4L_** -;:,% . **d;~4s+?a** ...$ F" seen-hpX$~c@ . ,-,, **C,>' ' " - in fqw judgments of .. .$X ...;i, ..$ < ". >.';, ,, 8.: . , : ,. this. Court. The earliest one5s?p$rdci6r -L ..*. ,,~ .< : ,., p .:, 6ene~41&f Police and Others v. (3. ". . 5, . 2 .: .:,. I . ^ 1.; " ,a,*..: "V Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407; wherein one asaan, a Police Constable, : ' A. along with two other constablesf&d;;bne '.I . Head Constable were charged for > * the same acts of m~~cnd~~~~~?&+~~isilin~~~horit exonerated two .* 5 ,.." . other constables, but imposed:-,th~;shq@t .. .. fdisrnissal ,i - ..<** fio~n service **1** _9_ .. **_i_ .** tljE onJasayan and that _qi_ **z.** _:z_ ~omjcils&fy $efireqe,nf' o@$Iead Constable. This '.'* **sr*,%?!> .,% . .; " $ Curt, in order to ine<-.lhei~~rid&:f -$ x,,.C. ?. .. justice;-Gubstitited ?i. the order o,f compulsory retirement in place ::, x. $: . - "...*-....<<. .,,, **t,** 09 : **"--.a** the order of dismissal from service on >... :., ? .<,, - &+.,'.% <:&P: +, .b , . . . ,l. .. .A Dasayan, applying the $$incipl$c..6,..gf.parity ?ui r,pbishment among co -I delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

¶40

16. Having noticed the facts in both the cases, it is apparent that I

¶41

the Enquiry. report has been prepared in cursory manner without dealing with the facts which had come on record. The Disciplinary 0

¶42

Authority has also failed to notice the findings. The very purpose ,,

¶43

of joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the .CCA Rules is to find out the

¶44

(11 of 12)

¶45

[CW-5892/2Oll]

¶46

actual responsibility of a particular individual delinquent in a. case where several business are involved. However, if there is same charge, as against two delinquents, one delinquent could not have been exonerated on the ground that award has been'approved by the Superior Officer, while holding other person guilty of the same charge. It is noticed that the petitioner has also taken the defence that the award passed by him was only after ta'king approval from the Collector, Tonk >... . and a - .estimate which:! .,. ??. has .? been prepared by Officer of the:.Iyri'gation , ?.. Department was the basis rj y for passing of interim avva.rd by his predecessors. Thus the estimates ,h%ave been ." J f; p& :-.. I' I left undkided by the concerned Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has alsp:;p'a:iled;to take notice of similarity of ..u,r ,it F.8. <, '. '' .. w.. A T <-' . . the charge of petitioner ab3<$:&~~~c;$~~2,&a?odiya. k r,^4- >:; <&:^.'. ,, f s, , ,;4 r: **~SC &:;,,,h., ., .3j;wce ,4;- :%.". - k g -+. :c:,> ." .,+. * "'2!cz:i:?r: , t. , i",. ' , &,>%@'. +?: '. i:;q.?A:.&>$@' - k.3" ,, * ‘4 >$,W .' h ; C fj! dLL - $2- : ,," Lf" 9r .:., i th9 V +.,:* I X ..

¶47

Keeping in view ;&o.$&,,.J,, l,,..!sti$ +;.,. '.. amGinclined :: .:j..$ to accept the *, : submissions of counsel for thhe;.petitioqers that the case set up r, !, 7- ; Ir .. against the petitioners for a <; <,,: &:hi:&h ;: :they, r? - .4 have been held guilty, is without basis and diffecen+s-k~.nside;a:ti;ns **_.!,,~~L!~~L;~~~c.:,~~~:-z+-_** ' '~ +, . .". w~~.,.:~,.~~? +,:.- a nd yard-sticks have I .' ?' ! *.- L . been adopted by the2 *I.: DiesccipCina,rg ?. q % ,?I j Authority and Enquiry Officer <v+ $ .. .. v;t. ! @ while exonerating the",:u;~~~~o,, ,Qi&ers and punishing the petitioners. While it is tljugtQa~[:.,$h:.is~cou~~~~yould a not substitute the * - f; :I own finding to that of the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, if decision making process itself is present and tainted, this cou,i-t would strike it down on that count.

¶48

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The " impugned order dated 11.4.2011 whereby the petitioner Lakhama Ram who has been punished of compulsory retirement and petitioner Amrit Ram who has been punished of with-holding of 10O0h pensiono with gratuity, is quashed and set aside with all

¶49

consequential benefits. The petitioners would be entitled to receive interest on the arrears and pension and gratuity @ g0/6 per annum respectively.

Amrit Ram Raidas v. State Dep of Personnel Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Ram Raidas v. State Dep of Personnel Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heera Lal Yogi Vs State and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Haldia Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Kalu Ram Gurjar Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.Jaipur

Lakhana Ram Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Niwas Ram Meena Vs Raj Finace Corp and Ors.

Nagar Palika Mandal and Anr. Vs President Asangathith Majdoor Santh Andanr