The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of a major penalty stopping annual increments. The Court found no perversity in the findings, held that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity and documents, and refused to interfere.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:48771]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1852/2001
Prabhu Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Asharam Meghwal aged about 47, R/o Village Chechat Tehsil Ramganj Mandi District Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21286/2013
Prabhu Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Asha Ram Meghwal, aged about 59 years, R/o Village Chechat, Tehsil Ramangmandi, Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with Mr. Shriram Jakhar Mr. Bharat Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
27/11/2024
(2 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:48771]
[CW-1852/2001]
^^ 1- ;g fd izn”kZ&7 vizkFkhZ la- 3 }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns”k dks fujLr Qjekos]
2- ;g fd vizkFkhZ la- 2 }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22&8&2000 izn”kZ&8 dkuwu ,oa rF;ksa ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k fujLr Qjekos] 3- ;g fd vU; dksbZ nkn”kh tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izkFkhZ ds gd esa mfpr le>s ikfjr QjekosA
4- ;g fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k ls ;kfpdk dk gtkZ&[kpkZ fnyok;s tkus ds vkns”k QjekosA**
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21286/2013
i. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quash the order dated 31/10/2000 and 10/07/2013 passed by the respondents. ii. Any other appropriate writ, order of directions in the present facts and circumstances of the case, which are deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iii. The writ petition be allowed through out costs.”
[2024:RJ-JP:48771]
[CW-1852/2001]
(3 of 5)
6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived, as the relevant documents and charge sheet along with photocopies were duly supplied to the petitioner on 20.12.1989 (Annexure-5). Moreover, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply and defense qua the said allegations, therefore it cannot be stated that relevant documents and charge sheet were not duly supplied to the petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JP:48771]
[CW-1852/2001]
(4 of 5)
manipulation in the records the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have stated that under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 sixteen charges and allegations were leveled against the petitioner, out of which Charge Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 are proved and other charges are partly proved (Annexure-7).
12.1 That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari in the year 1997.
12.2 That the charge sheet numbering 1101/1989 against the petitioner was issued on 24.10.1989 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Annexure-1).
12.3. That the Disciplinary inquiry was initiated and major penalty were imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 29.03.1994 (Annexure-7) and the same was upheld by the appellant authority on 22.08.2000 (Annexure-8).
12.4. That after providing due opportunity of hearing, considering the requisite documents and records and considering the allegations qua non deposition of revenue amount, non maintenance of records and qua other reasons, the impugned order dated 29.03.1994 was passed.
[2024:RJ-JP:48771]
[CW-1852/2001]
(5 of 5)
12.5. That upon perusal of the records it is reflected that opportunity qua personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, adequate defense was taken by the petitioner, and allegation qua non supply of documents holds no stand as the documents were duly accepted by the petitioner as reflected from the records available, and appropriate defense was taken by the petitioner qua the levelled allegations.
12.6. That the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived due to the above stated reasons.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /3-4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of major penalty were violative of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of documents.
Whether the High Court should interfere with findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities in the absence of perversity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan KhanReferred¶42
(1991) 1 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.Referred¶42
(2006) 4 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
Haresh Dayaram Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and OrsReferred¶42
(2000) 6 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
Prabhu Lal Meghwal
State Of Rajasthan
Divisional Commissioner, Kota
District Judge, Kota
Tehsildar Kota
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal
SAMEER JAIN
ANIL SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
