Allowed

C P Mathur v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2023CW/13540/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition challenging disciplinary penalty orders. Relying on a coordinate precedent, the Court held that vague allegations of failing revenue targets without specific misconduct details do not justify punishment. Impugned orders were quashed for violating natural justice due to lack of reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 22.05.2009 and 03.11.2009 quashed and set aside; petitioner entitled to consequential benefits.

C P Mathur Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

" HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH hf JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13540/2010

¶3

C.P. Mathur S/o Shri C.L. Mathur, aged about 58 years, Commercial Tax Officer, Anti-Evasion, Sri Ganganagar, R/o Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

3. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chinmay Saxena with Mr. Aditya Pancholi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyendra Meena for Mr. K.S. Chandel

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

29/08/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶15

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may most graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition of humble petitioner and be further pleased to-

¶16

(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order of direction to quash and set aside the impugned order of punishment dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure-4) and order dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure-5).

¶17

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. The cost of the Writ petition may also be quantified in favour of the petitioner."

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order vide which penalty of censure virx imposed upon him on the ground that he has failed to recover the due amount of revenue. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kisna Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.746212008). Counsel submits that instant petition be disposed of in the light of similar direction issued in the case of Kisna Ram (supra). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') with the specific charge that the petitioner has failed to recover the due amount' of revenue and has failed to achieve the targets. The similar issue has been dealt and decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kisna Ram (supra) by

(3 of 5)

[CW-13540/2010]

[2023:lU-JP:19882]

3 r, I#$ .is? 4' ' .* 7

¶23

recording the following observations and direction which are reproduced as under:-

¶24

"As said above, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner failed to achieve the required target relating to recovery of revenue and therefore, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the penalty. From stand of the respondents it appears that the failure to achieve target for effecting recovery of revenue itself is treated as a misconduct and as such there was no need to examine the surrounding facts causing less recovery of revenue than the target prescribed. If the stand aforesaid be accepted, then there was no need even to conduct an inquiry or to say the need was only to the extent of determination of penalty. However, it is not the correct legal position.

¶25

It is well settled that to constitute a misconduct there should be a wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct that may be due to slackness, carelessness or due to some act by commission or omission on the part of the employee. An employer while alleging misconduct against an employee must note the omission or commission of a wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct or act on part of the employee concerned. Mere mentioning of result or mere mentioning of consequence of such act is not sufficient. The department or the employer, as the case may be, may have suffered

¶26

I; C> i , loss, received injury for certain reasons but to reach at t conclusion that such injuries or losses are because of some improper and unlawful conduct of the employee, necessary details regarding commission or omission and the acts of such employee are required to be given. In the instant matter in quite a vague manner a simple allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he failed to achieve the settled target for collecting revenue. It is no where stated in the allegation or in statement supporting the allegation that because of deeds or because of omission on part of the delinquent employee the government suffered a loss on account of less recovery of revenue. As a matter of fact in the instant matter the charge itself is not specific and as such initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such a vague charge is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.

¶27

I also find merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned are not speaking and reasoned orders. As a matter of fact the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority simply mentions findings and no reasons. In absence of reasons the objectivity of an order imposing penalty or an order of quasi judicial/judicial nature can not be examined.

¶28

From reading of the orders impugned it does not reveal that as to how the petitioner is found guilty for the alleged misconduct. On this account too the orders impugned deserve to be declared bad.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 3.7.2008 affirmed by the appellate authority are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits."

¶30

It is worthy to note that the judgment passed in the case of Kisna Ram was assailed by the State before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.300/2009; State of Rajasthan & Ors, vs. Kisna Ram and the said appeal has been dismissed and the judgment passed in the case of Kihna Ram has been upheld and the same has attained finality.

¶31

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, instant petition stands allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.05.2009 and 03.11.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

Simple Kurnawat 1128

C P Mathur v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C P Mathur v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Rameshwari Meena W/O Kishan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Jarnail Singh Vs State Mines Departmentanr

Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/O Ramgopal Sharma Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Meva Ram Son of Shri Ganesh Ram Ji Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhimraj and Ors. Vs State of Raj Andors

Rekha Raj Choudhary Vs R S R T C and Ors.