The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging punishment imposed on a Junior Engineer. The Court held that the petitioner failed to join his parent department after a valid relieving direction and affirmed the conviction and minimum punishment.
Writ petition dismissed; punishment order dated 01.11.2018 affirmed.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2019
Pradeep Kumar Chhangani S/o Shri Omprakash Chhangani, Aged About 47 Years, 24, Sukhanand Bagechi, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/07/2022
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer with the Panchayati Raj Department in the year 2010. Subsequently, in the same year, the petitioner applied to his Parent Department for No Objection Certificate for the purpose of his deputation to Jodhpur Development Authority as well as Rajasthan Council of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as, ‘R.C.S.E.’). In pursuance thereof, the No Objection Certificate for R.C.S.E. was granted to
(2 of 6)
[CW-1456/2019]
the petitioner on 26.04.2011 by his Parent Department for appearing in the interview.
On 20.06.2011, the order deputing the petitioner with R.C.S.E. Department was issued and in pursuance to the same the petitioner was relieved by the Parent Department on 22.06.2011. On 06.07.2011, he joined as junior Engineer, Pali with R.C.S.E.
On 22.08.2012, an order was issued by the Director of the R.C.S.E. whereby it was specifically directed that the deputation of the petitioner with the said Department is cancelled and the petitioner was relieved to join at Panchayat Samiti, Baap, Jodhpur with immediate effect.
Inspite of the order dated 22.8.2012 being passed, the petitioner did not join the Parent Department and on 31.08.2012, a communication was sent by the District Education Officer to the Director that the petitioner cannot be relieved as he has been entrusted with certain important functions and unless and until some other Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer is appointed in his place, he cannot be relieved. It has been alleged that the petitioner was not relieved and therefore, he could not join his Parent Department till the year 2014.
In such circumstances, the order dated 15.09.2014 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department with a specific direction to the petitioner to join his Parent Department even without the relieving order being issued by the R.C.S.E. When the petitioner did not join even in pursuance to the said order, show cause notice dated 07.10.2014 was served on him. A reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner on 03.11.2014 with the submission that unless he is relieved from his place of deputation, he cannot join his Parent Department.
(3 of 6)
[CW-1456/2019]
On 02.12.2014, an application was moved by the petitioner to the District Project Coordinator of R.C.S.E. (the immediate officer under whom the petitioner was working) with a prayer to relieve him. But still the petitioner did not join his Parent Department and therefore, again vide notice dated 19.05.2015, he was directed to join the Parent Department. Ultimately, the petitioner was relieved on 05.06.2015 and he joined on 08.06.2015.
On 15.06.2015, an order of posting was passed and the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur. On 28.04.2016, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with four specific charges. An inquiry was conducted in the matter and vide inquiry report dated 09.11.2017, the Inquiry officer found Charge Nos.2 and 3 to be proved against the petitioner whereas Charge Nos. 1 and 4 not to be proved. The said inquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority for appropriate action. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on Charge Nos. 1 and 4 and while communicating the reason for disagreement, served a notice dated 27.12.2017 upon the petitioner calling upon him to file his objections, if any. Objections were filed by the petitioner and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority proceeded upon to impose the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner vide order dated 01.11.2018.
Aggrieved against the Inquiry Report, the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the punishment order dated 01.11.2018, the present writ petition has been preferred.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings as recorded by the Inquiry Officer are totally
(4 of 6)
[CW-1456/2019]
perverse as there was no fault on part of the petitioner for not joining the Parent Department. Learned counsel submitted that unless and until he was relieved from the deputed Department he could not have joined the Parent Department. He submitted that the order dated 22.08.2012 alleged to be relieving order was in fact not an order to relieve the petitioner but was just a direction by the higher authority to the concerned Officer. By the said order dated 22.08.2012, the petitioner was not relieved and he was relieved only on 05.06.2015. Soon after he being relieved, he joined on 08.06.2015 and therefore, cannot be faulted with.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 22.08.2012 was crystal clear and was passed by the competent authority of the R.C.S.E. The said order in unequivocal terms was an order to relieve the petitioner and the petitioner ought to have joined his Parent Department immediately after the order dated 22.08.2012. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, intentionally, in connivance with the officer concerned, chose not to join the Parent Department in the garb of the communication dated 31.08.2012 written by the officer concerned. Further, learned counsel submitted that the punishment as imposed is the minimum punishment and looking to the findings arrived by the Inquiry Officer as well as disciplinary authority, no lesser punishment could have been imposed in the present matter. He further submitted that it is a case where there is a very limited scope of interference and this Court should be slow in interfering with the same.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(5 of 6)
[CW-1456/2019]
Before adverting into the facts, it is essential to peruse the order dated 22.08.2012. The said order reads as under:
“dk;kZy; vkns”k
xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ¼iapk;rh jkt foHkkx½ ds i= Øekad& ,Q 701¼12½iajkfo@iz”kk-2@dfu-vfHk@vkj-ih-,l-lh-@fu;q-@laLFkk@2010@2076] t;iqj] fnukad 12-07-2012 }kjk Jh iznhi dqekj Naxk.kh] dfu’B vfHk;ark dh izfrfu;qfDr lekIr dj foHkkx esa okfil fHktok;s tkus ds fy, fy[kk gSA vr% Jh iznhi dqekj Naxk.kh] dfu’B vfHk;ark] jkekf”ki-] ikyh dh izfrfu;qfDr rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr dj bUgsa iapk;r lfefr] cki ¼tks/kiqj½ ds fy, dk;ZeqDr fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh lEcfU/kr dks vknsf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd rnuqlkj ikyuk dj ikyuk fjiksVZ izsf’kr djsaA
lgh@& funs”kd ¼ek-f”k-½ ,oa jkT; ifj;kstuk funs”kd jktLFkku ek/;fed f”k{kk ifj’kn~ t;iqj”
A bare perusal of the order dated 22.08.2012 issued by the Director of R.C.S.E. makes it clear that the same is definitely an order whereby the deputation of the petitioner had been cancelled and he had been relieved with the specific direction to rejoin his Parent Department with immediate effect. The said order has been tried to be surpassed by the District Education Officer-cum-Project Coordinator of the Department vide communication dated 31.08.2012. Even if the said communication was made by the officer to the higher authority of the Department, it is clear on record that no further directions were issued by the higher authorities in pursuance to the said communication. Therefore, the officer concerned as well as the petitioner were under an obligation to comply with the order dated 22.08.2012. A perusal of the Inquiry Report makes it clear that a specific finding against the District Project Coordinator has been recorded and it has been specifically found that the communication dated 31.08.2012 was
(6 of 6)
[CW-1456/2019]
made jointly in connivance by the officer concerned as the petitioner.
Moresoever, even after there being no modification of the order dated 22.08.2012 by the authorities of the R.C.S.E., the petitioner did not choose to join his Parent Department. A specific order dated 15.09.2014 was issued by the Parent Department directing the petitioner to join with immediate effect even if no relieving order has been passed but the petitioner did not care to comply with the same and continued to serve on his place of deputation.
In view of the above facts, the findings as arrived by the Inquiry officer and further affirmed by the disciplinary authority so far as the charge Nos.1 and 4 are concerned cannot be faulted with as the same are based on specific reasons and grounds. Moresoever, the punishment as imposed on the petitioner is on the lowest side.
In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 01.11.2018 imposing the punishment upon the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
54-Ashutosh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority regarding the petitioner's failure to join his parent department and the imposition of punis
Whether the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment was appropriate in the facts of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Chhangani
State Of Rajasthan
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
