Allowed

Budh Ram Tanan v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CW/12935/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed the notice of disagreement and subsequent punishment order for lack of recorded reasons. The Court held that mere reproduction of the charge sheet does not satisfy the requirement to inform the officer why the findings were disagreed with, thus preventing a meaningful defense.

What did the court decide?

The notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016 and consequential punishment order dated 29.07.2020 are quashed. Disciplinary Authority must serve a fresh notice with specific reasons by 30.09.2023.

Budh Ram Tanan Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12935/2020

¶4

Budh Ram Tanan S/o Shri Richhpal Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 2/5 Ignp Colony, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
1.	The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan,Jaipur.
2.	The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,Jaipur.
3.	The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan,Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S.Sodha For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

14/08/2023

¶12

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure.10), imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner has raised various grounds touching upon the correctness and validity of the order impugned dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure.10), out of which, the basic argument has been, that while issuing the notice of disagreement on 25.01.2016, the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded reason(s) for his disagreement and the same is, therefore, contrary to Rule 16 (10) and Rule 16 (10-A) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules or Rules of 1958’) and consequential order is thus, bad in the eye of law.

¶14

(2 of 6) [CW-12935/2020]

¶15

The precise facts are that under the apprehension of excess payment having been made, two inspections or fact finding inquiries were got conducted by the department’s officers on 30.05.2007 and 05.05.2008 respectively. The first fact finding report dated 30.05.2007 accused the petitioner of making excess payment while the second report dated 05.05.2008 did not find the petitioner lacking in any manner. The disciplinary proceedings were, however, initiated against the petitioner and his three colleagues and a charge-sheet dated 30.11.2010 was served and an Inquiry Officer was appointed.

¶16

The Inquiry Officer examined the record, representation of the petitioner and evidence in detail and gave his report dated 14.10.2015 exonerating the petitioner and two other officers. 5. The Disciplinary Authority was, however, not satisfied with the inquiry report furnished by the Inquiry Officer and issued a notice dated 25.01.2016 to the petitioner in which it was informed that he was in disagreement with the inquiry report.

¶17

A reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner, whereafter an order dated 29.07.2020 came to be passed and punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner. 7. While maintaining that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to facts and law, Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a fundamental question relating to notice of disagreement (dated 25.01.2016) and argued that instead of assigning reasons of disagreement with the Inquiry

¶18

[CW-12935/2020]

¶19

(3 of 6)

¶20

Officer’s finding, the Disciplinary Authority has simply reproduced the charge leveled against the petitioner verbatim.

¶21

It was argued that the reasons purportedly assigned in the notice dated 25.01.2016 cannot be considered as reasons for disagreement and therefore, not only the notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016, but also the consequential order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that the notice dated 25.01.2016 contained fresh reasons and if the petitioner was not satisfied with the reasons or the manner in which the reasons were assigned, he ought to have raised such objection in reply to the notice and now, the petitioner having failed to raise such objection, cannot be permitted to flag this error or purported lapse at this stage, when he has already suffered punishment.

¶23

In other words, argument of learned government counsel has been that the petitioner can not be permitted to find fault in the notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016 before this Court as the same has culminated into order of punishment. She argued that the petitioner at the best can raise arguments in relation to the correctness of the order of punishment only.

¶24

Ms. Kumbhat further submitted that the Inquiry Officer had seriously erred in relying heavily upon the second inspection report dated 05.05.2008, while completely ignoring the first inspection report dated 30.05.2007, which had been duly noticed and highlighted by the Disciplinary Authority in his notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016.

¶25

[CW-12935/2020]

¶26

(4 of 6)

¶27

Though various arguments have been advanced, but without dilating upon other contentions, including argument relating to the quantum of punishment, this Court proposes to confine itself to the notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016, which in the opinion of this Court is not in accordance with law.

¶28

On perusal of the notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016, this Court finds that the same is more or less reproduction of charge leveled against the petitioner.

¶29

The Disciplinary Authority may have had in his mind that the Inquiry Officer has not considered the first inspection report dated 30.05.2007 and has relied upon subsequent inspection report dated 05.05.2008, but then, such reason should be reflected in his notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016.

¶30

Maybe, both the reports dated 30.05.2007 and 05.05.2008 pertain to different areas as alleged by the State and the Inquiry Officer might have erred in placing reliance upon the report dated 05.05.2008, while completely ignoring the first inspection report dated 30.05.2007. But that aspect too needs to be mentioned in the notice dated 25.01.2016

¶31

Technically what has been sought to be argued by Ms. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondent-State may or may not be correct and the report(s) of the Inquiry Officer may be erroneous on such count, but then, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to have recorded reasons specifically, instead of practically reproducing the charge leveled against the petitioner and crux of detailed statement of allegations. The submissions made on behalf of the State to justify the notice

¶32

[CW-12935/2020]

¶33

(5 of 6)

¶34

dated 25.01.2016 or justification cannot be considered at this stage, particularly when the notice of disagreement does not contain any such reason.

¶35

The requirement of recording reasons for disagreement has its own significance and consequence. Unless the reasons are recorded, a delinquent cannot know that why the Disciplinary Authority holds an opinion other than what has been concluded by the Inquiry Officer. If the reasons of disagreement are not intimated to the incumbent, he cannot possibly file his response and defend his case or object to the probable imposition of punishment.

¶36

The notice dated 25.01.2016 lacks requisite reasons for disagreement. Mere reproduction of the charge cannot be termed as reason for disagreement, particularly when the first inspection report dated 30.05.2007 has been dealt with by the Inquiry Officer and found to be technically incorrect.

¶37

The notice of disagreement dated 25.01.2016 and consequential order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure.10) are, therefore, quashed and set aside. 20. It will be required of the Disciplinary Authority to serve a fresh notice for disagreement (if deemed expedient), indicating therein specific reasons for which he does not agree with the findings of Inquiry Officer. The notice, (if any) be served on or before 30.09.2023.

¶38

The petitioner shall be allowed reasonable opportunity to file reply to the notice, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority shall pass fresh order in accordance with law. The entire exercise be

¶39

(6 of 6)

¶40

[CW-12935/2020]

¶41

completed in six months, as the work in question was done in the year 2005-06 to 2006-07.

¶42

Petitioner’s right to challenge the final order shall remain reserved.

¶43

Needless to observe that any of the observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the rights of either parties, inasmuch as the discussion hereinabove is confined to the issue canvassed and decided by this Court (as to whether reason(s) inscribed in the notice dated 25.01.2016 is/are sufficient or not).

¶44

The present petition stands allowed as indicated above.

¶45

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶47

41-akansha/-

Budh Ram Tanan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budh Ram Tanan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddi Kumari Bhoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prama Devi Vs Union of India

Narbada Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lachha Ram Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharu Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan