Allowed

Anita Verma v. State of Raj

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2020CW/18644/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition by a government employee who was punished with stoppage of grade increments after an inquiry officer exonerated him. The court held that the disciplinary authority failed to issue a disagreement notice or allow a representation opportunity, violating natural justice. The impugned orders of punishment and rejection of the appeal were quashed. The petitioner i

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 16th March 2013 and 10th June 2013 quashed and set aside. Petitioner entitled to consequential benefits, restoration of two annual increments with interest at 9% per annum.

Anita Verma Vs State of Raj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

,dy ihB ;kfpdk la[;k 18644@2013

¶3

vfurk oekZ iRuh Jh ds- vkj- eh.kk mez yxHkx 40 o"kZ fuoklh 66] lSuh dkWyksuh& izFke] djrkjiqjk] t;iqjA

¶4

------;kfpdkdrhZ

¶5

fo:)

¶6

jktLFkku ljdkj tfj;s izeq[k 'kklu lfpo egksn;] lesfdr cky fodkl lsok,sa] jktLFkku ljdkj] 'kklu lfpoky;] t;iqjA

¶7

---foi{kh

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Priyanka Pareek,AGC

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

08/09/2020

¶12

Admittedly, a short point involved in the present petition is that petitioner has been punished vide order dated 16^th April, 2013 with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the basis of a charge sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules dated 16^th March, 2007.

¶13

The aforesaid punishment order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby he has disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, who had submitted his inquiry report on 7^th January, 2013 exonerating the petitioner of both the charges. Specific directions were issued by this court to the respondent/s to produce any document before the court showing that a disagreement notice was issued. However, learned counsel

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-18644/2013]

¶16

for the respondents has admitted that before passing of the order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority has not issued a disagreement notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had raised this objection in appeal while the Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 10^th June, 2013 in a cursory manner.

¶17

Law in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶18

“18. Under Regulation 6, the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the inquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an inquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the inquiry officer's report and, while recording of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of inquiry as explained in Karunakar's case.

¶19

The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-18644/2013]

¶22

a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

¶23

The similar view has also been expressed by this court in the case of Kesar Lal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.5911/1998, decided vide order dated 4^th April, 2018.

¶24

Keeping in view above, the impugned orders passed by the respondent cannot be allowed to be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 16^th April, 2013 and 10^th June, 2013 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and two annual grade increments shall be restored to the petitioner with interest @9% per annum. The compliance shall be made within a period of three months henceforth.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

FATEH RAJ BOHRA /6-66

Anita Verma v. State of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Verma v. State of Raj

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

Ram Lal Mahich Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyam Singh Vs Labour Court and Anr.

Kamla Sharan Mishra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Narainlal S/O Shri Chandanlal

Shri Ram Mongas Narain Vs the Director/ Executive Director (Marketing)

Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs Dy Forest Conservator and Anr.