Partly allowed

State of Rajasthan v. Lakhama Ram Meena S/O Shri Nanda Ram Meena

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2019SAW/503/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined whether a notice of disagreement was required when the disciplinary authority's conclusion aligned with the enquiry officer's finding. The Court reasoned that no such notice was needed as the findings were identical. Consequently, the appeal to modify the penalty was partially allowed, setting aside the single judge's order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the order of penalty is modified to take effect from the date of this judgment and proportionate pension shall be worked out.

State of Rajasthan Vs Lakhama Ram Meena… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.503/2019

¶3

With

¶4

D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5126/2019 In

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5892/2011

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Lakhama Ram Meena S/o Shri Nanda Ram Meena, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Devpura, Tehsil Deoli, Distt. Tonk. At Present Working As L.D.C., Irrigation Department, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Distt. Tonk.

¶11

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ashwini Jaiman with Mr. Laxmikant Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

13/08/2019

¶17

This appeal is directed against judgment dated 09.01.2019 whereby learned Single Jude, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others – AIR 1984 SC 1499 and Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others – (2013) 3 SCC 73 , arrived at the finding that the disciplinary authority was required to give a notice of disagreement to the petitioner-respondent whereas no

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[SAW-503/2019]

¶20

such notice was not served on him and therefore the learned Single Judge set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner-respondent passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶21

Mr. S.S. Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, submitted that the enquiry officer has, although exonerated the petitioner-respondent on charge no.1, but categorically found the charge no.2 proved against the petitioner-respondent and therefore the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the notice of disagreement was required to be served on the petitioner-respondent, was not legally correct.

¶22

Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitionerrespondent, has submitted that the charge no.2 against the petitioner-respondent was to the effect that he did not place on file No.75/92 copy of the site plan and thus facilitated payment of compensation to Sheoji Meena, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer, although Sheoji Meena was not entitled to receive such compensation as it was pasture land and he did not have any title over that land. The enquiry officer has however recorded a finding that the ‘moka parcha’ report was caused to be removed from the file with mala fide intention of securing undue benefit to Sheoji Meena, though the land in dispute was a pasture land and the file was being maintained by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the disciplinary authority was required to serve notice of disagreement because the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority was entirely different than the finding recorded by the enquiry officer.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent then argued that the disciplinary authority, following the finding of the enquiry officer that the delinquent with mala fide intention caused the ‘moka

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[SAW-503/2019]

¶26

parcha’ report to be removed from the file, has recorded a finding that the delinquent did not get the ‘moka parcha’ report included in the file and this, according to him, amounted to disagreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Learned Single Judge was therefore justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner-respondent.

¶27

We are afraid we cannot countenance such a submission nor can we approve of the finding recorded by learned Single Judge because the charge no.2 against the petitioner-respondent is quite categorical and is to the effect that the delinquent, without getting the site plan placed on the file, facilitated the payment of compensation in respect of the land, which was not in the title of the concerned person and he got illegal estimate prepared for payment of compensation and thereby acceded undue benefit to Sheoji Meena and it was wrongful loss to the State exchequer.

¶28

Comparison of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority does not make it a case of any disagreement. On the contrary, while the enquiry officer has recorded that the delinquent with mala-fide intention caused the site plan (moka parcha report) removed from the file and since the file always remained in his possession, he was guilty of getting undue payment of compensation for a pasture land and thereby causing loss to the State exchequer and the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority is identical to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer.

¶29

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent submitted that since the order of compulsory retirement was passed way back in the year 2011 and the petitioner-respondent has been working with the appellant department for past eight

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[SAW-503/2019]

¶32

years on the strength of the stay order of this Court and that only four years are left to be served by him with the appellant department, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension would be wholly unjustified and disproportionate. Such penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any case to hold the penalty to be shockingly disproportionate in view of gravity of the charge. Considering now that the petitionerrespondent has remained in service of the appellant department for last about eight years more on account of the stay order passed by this Court, we are inclined to modify the order of penalty by directing that the order of penalty shall take effect from the date of this judgment and accordingly the proportionate pension of the petitioner-respondent shall be worked out.

¶34

In terms of the above, the appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. This also disposes of the stay application.

¶35

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶36

//Jaiman//41

State of Rajasthan v. Lakhama Ram Meena S/O Shri Nanda Ram Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Lakhama Ram Meena S/O Shri Nanda Ram Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Pankaj Saxena Son of Shri Brij Mohan Saxena, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ratan Singh Meena S/O Shri Baniyaram Meena Vs Shri Praveen Gupta Secretary Department of Finance (Treasury and Accounts)

Sunita Choudhary D/O Shri Shyoji Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Vandana Rajauria D/O Jagdish Babu Rajauria

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Vs Durga Shankar Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma