The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order initiating fresh departmental proceedings under Rule 16. The court held the Additional Chief Engineer lacked jurisdiction to review and that natural justice mandates a hearing before modifying a disciplinary order.
The impugned order dated 13.12.1999 was quashed, set aside, and made absolute.
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 Writ Petition No.270/2000
Veer Singh S/o Shri Mangal Ram, aged about 49 years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Village Kuty, Bandikui, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy.GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
16/03/2021
(2 of 4)
[CW-270/2000]
was preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 01.07.1996, the order of removal was set aside by the State Government and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed accordingly to the Rules. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service and the enquiry initiated earlier under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was converted to enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA, Rules 1958 vide order dated 23.12.1998. After filing the reply, the Superintending Engineer passed an order directing the petitioner to be careful in future and the proceedings were closed. After having closed the proceedings, the Additional Chief Engineer (Irrigation) has issued a letter on 30.04.1999 stating that the action of the petitioner was of serious nature and has directed to initiate proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 afresh and accordingly the Superintending Engineer has passed an impugned order recalling his earlier order dated 13.04.1999. 3. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 13.04.1999 could not have been passed after the departmental enquiry stood closed and warning having been issued to the petitioner for the misconduct. The second departmental enquiry on the same charges could not have been initiated under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 on the directions of the Additional Chief Engineer who is not the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that the equivalent authority and the reviewing authority of the petitioner would be the State Government. As per Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1958 a review can only be conducted after giving opportunity of hearing.
(3 of 4)
[CW-270/2000]
respondents be considered. As per the reply, respondents have asserted there and supported the action of the Superintending Engineer and it is stated that as the Additional Chief Engineer is the higher authority to the Superintending Engineer he has the power to review the order of the Superintending Engineer and give directions to conduct fresh enquiry. A fresh charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 could have been issued. It is stated that such a charge sheet was also issued and served to the petitioner.
(4 of 4)
[CW-270/2000]
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH YADAV /670/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Chief Engineer had the jurisdiction to review the disciplinary authority's order.
Whether the initiation of proceedings contravened the principles of natural justice under Rule 34.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Veer Singh
State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bharatpur
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Saurabh Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
