Rekha Chauhan Vs State and Ors.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.05.1998 passed by the respondent No.2- the Director, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Rajasthan whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.11.1996 passed by the respondent No.3- the Regional Deputy Director, Women and Child Development Department inflicting a penalty of “censure” upon her, it has been upheld.

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:21474]

¶16

[CW-3030/2001]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was served upon with a chargesheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”) vide notice dated 09.07.1996 wherein, it was alleged, inter alia, that she interpolated in her medical sickness certificate dated 07.10.1995 and when she came to know that an action could be taken against her on this count, she requested for grant of earned leave instead of the commuted leave as prayed earlier. After holding the inquiry in accordance with law, she was punished with the penalty of “censure” by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 01.11.1996 which has been upheld by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner thereagainst vide order dated 18.05.1998.

¶19

Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since, she was punished by an incompetent authority, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submits that being a member of the subordinate services, it is the head of the department, i.e., the respondent No.2- the Director, Women and Child Development Department, who was the only competent authority to have visited her with the punishment under the Rules of 1958 and since, in the instant case, she has been punished by the Regional Deputy Director, the order of punishment as also the appellate order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the orders impugned dated 18.05.1998 and as also dated 01.11.1996 be quashed and set

[2025:RJ-JP:21474]

[CW-3030/2001]

(3 of 4)

aside and she may be exonerated from the charge levelled against her vide notice dated 09.07.1996.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 23.09.1995 issued by the State Government, would submit that thereby, the Regional Deputy Director has been empowered as the appointing authority for the women/male supervisor and since, the petitioner has been punished by the competent authority, no interference in the orders impugned is required. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶25

Heard. Considered.

¶26

The relevant provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1958 provide as under:-

¶27

15. Disciplinary Authorities : (1) In respect of the State Services the Government or the authority specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Services, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government and in respect of Class IV Services, the Head of Office shall be the disciplinary authority.

¶28

Note : (i) The authority specially empowered to make appointment to a service under rule 12 of these rules shall have power to inflict any of the penalities specified in rule 14.

¶29

A perusal of the order dated 23.09.1995 issued by the State Government reveals that the Regional Deputy Director of the

¶30

(4 of 4) [CW-3030/2001]

¶31

[2025:RJ-JP:21474]

¶32

Women and Child Development Department has been specially empowered to make appointment to the post of women and male supervisor under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958.

¶33

In view thereof, this Court finds that the petitioner has been punished in an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 by the Regional Deputy Director who was specifically empowered to make appointment to the post which the petitioner was holding at the relevant time, i.e., the woman supervisor and was, therefore, competent to do so.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the submission advance by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶37

YOGESH/1

Rekha Chauhan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Chauhan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Ramji Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Mahawar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Murari Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Managing Committee Shri Purush Vs the Rngeit Jaipur and Ors.

Inder Singh S/O Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pati Ram Vs Raj High Court