Union of India Vs Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/O Shri B.S. Rathore

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2734/2023

¶4

Union Of India, Through National Council Of Education Research And Training Through Its Secretary, Shri Arbindo Marg, New Delhi-110006.

¶5

Regional Institute Of Education, Through Its Principal, Ajmer.

¶6

Shri K.c. Bakliwal, Enquiry Officer, Regional Institute Of Education, Ajmer Presently Residing At 5 B, Alakhnanda Colony, Behind Mps School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer305004.

¶7

Shri K.b. Rath, Through Principal, Institute Of Education, Ajmer Presently Posted As Principal, Regional Institute Of Education, Bhubneshwar.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/o Shri B.s. Rathore, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Presently Posted As Store Keeper Grade-Ii, Regional Institute Of Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. P.C. Sharma with Ms. Arpita Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SukhrajSingh Ratore

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

¶13

Order

¶14

1.	Date of conclusion of Arguments	08.01.2026
2.	Date on which thejudgment was reserved	08.01.2026
3.	Whether the full judgment or only operative part ispronounced	Full
4.	Date ofpronouncement	16.01.2026

¶15

Per, Ravi Chirania, J:-

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Union of India challenging the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(2 of 7)

by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘ learned Tribunal ’ for short). Learned counsel submitted that the applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘ respondent ’ for short) filed an Original Application (OA) No.355/2014 with the following prayers:-

¶21

“1. By appropriate writ or order or direction your lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dated 22.09.2022 passed in OA No.335/2014 Bhanwar Singh Rathore Vs. UOI & Ors. with all effects.

¶22

2. Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and suitable for the benefit of the petitioners may kindly be passed. 3. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶23

By the aforesaid Original Application, the challenge was made to the order dated 29.04.2013 as modified by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 23.04.2014, whereby the punishment was modified. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-Union of India initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and he was punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement from his services vide order dated 29.04.2013 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The respondent availed the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, which reviewed the punishment and modified to major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Store Keeper Grade-II in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20,200/- with the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- with immediate effect. Being aggrieved of the above

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(3 of 7)

mentioned order, the Original Application was filed before the learned Tribunal.

¶28

The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 22.09.2022 allowed the OA and quashed the order dated 23.04.2014. Relevant paras 29 & 30 of the order is reproduced below:-

¶29

“In the light of the observations and discussion made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure-A/2) deserves to be quashed and set aside and, thus, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant as per rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate order in the case of applicant as has been passed in the case of other members of the Buses Hiring Committee, who are found equally responsible and as we have found that the applicant cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire tender process. Accordingly, Original Application is allowed with these observations and directions. No order as to costs.

¶30

So far as M.A. No.664/2020 is concerned, we feel that if the applicant has any grievance with regard to the submissions as made in the said M.A., he is at liberty to raise his grievance before the respondent-Authority and the respondent-authority shall look into the matter keeping in view the observations and directions made in the aforesaid order in O.A. and pass necessary order in the matter. Accordingly, M.A. No.664/2020 stands disposed of. ”

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(4 of 7)

Being aggrieved by the contrary directions as issued by the learned Tribunal in para 29, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel Mr.P.C. Sharma appearing for the petitionerUnion of India submitted that on the one hand, learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.04.2014 and on the other hand, the matter has been remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders in the case of the respondent as has been passed in the case of other members of the Buses Hiring Committee, who were found equally responsible. According to leaned counsel both the directions are contrary, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the sole respondent Mr.Sukhraj Singh Rathore strongly opposed the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as far as the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same is a reasoned order and deserves no interference by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the respondent was made scapegoat and was solely punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement, was not found to be legal, and therefore, the Appellate Authority reviewed the punishment and imposed another major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Store Keeper Grade II. Though, the respondent had already suffered the punishment, however, he challenged the same before the learned

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(5 of 7)

Tribunal. The respondent is litigating against the illegal action of the petitioners from last more than fifteen years.

¶41

Learned Tribunal after considering the complete record as well as the allegations as levelled against the respondent, where he was made scapegoat by the Higher Officials of the petitioner, leaving the other members, who were allegedly involved, but no action was taken against them. Therefore, the action of the petitioner as Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority was not found to be correct by the learned Tribunal, and therefore, the reasoned order dated 22.09.2022 was passed by the learned Tribunal. However, learned counsel did not oppose challenge to the contrary direction regarding remand of the case to the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders in the case of the respondent, as has been passed in the case of other members of the Buses Hiring Committee, should also be passed in this case also, nevertheless, the same does not appear to be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶42

In view of the above, learned counsel prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed being devoid of merits. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶43

This Court considered the fact that the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment of compulsory retirement on the respondent by order dated 29.04.2013, however, the same was reviewed by the Appellate Authority and the punishment was modified vide order dated 23.04.2014 and another major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Store Keeper Grade-II was imposed. This order was not challenged by the petitioner-

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(6 of 7)

UOI, which shows that the petitioner-UOI was satisfied with the order dated 23.04.2014 and the same was accepted and also attained finality in their respect. However, the respondent challenged the same before the learned Tribunal and the same was examined by the learned Tribunal. The basic punishment order and the order of the Appellate Authority viz-aviz the involvement of the Higher Officials of the Buses Hiring Committee who were intentionally left out and the respondent in a pick and choose manner made scapegoat was noted while examining the record. The above action of the petitioner was not found to be fair, legal and reasonable and after detailed examination of the complete record, therefore the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 as passed by the Appellate Authority was also quashed by the learned Tribunal which restores the position of the respondent prior to imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement.

¶48

During course of the arguments, it was informed to this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.C. Sharma that order of the Tribunal dated 22.09.2022 has been complied with in pursuance of which the respondent has been reinstated and has been granted all consequential benefits.

¶49

This Court, in view of the above discussion and examining the order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.09.2022 and also the fact that the petitioner had already made compliance of the order, finds no error in the order as passed by the learned Tribunal. However, this Court is inclined to accept the limited prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contrary directions regarding the remand of the matter to the Appellate Authority to

[2026:RJ-JP:1750-DB]

[CW-2734/2023]

(7 of 7)

pass an appropriate order in the case of the respondent, as has been passed in the case of other members of the Buses Hiring Committee, does not appears to be necessary and required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the abovementioned direction of remand is hereby quashed and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed to this extent only while affirming the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶56

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶57

Monika

Union of India v. Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/O Shri B.S. Rathore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/O Shri B.S. Rathore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sh. Prem Singh S/O Sh. Gokul Singh

The Commissioner Vs Narendar Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh

The Union of India Vs No. 6371298 Ex-Sep (Reservist) Sultan Singh S/O Shri Anna Ram

The Union of India Vs Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay Son of Shri Tara Kant Upadhyaya

The Union of India Vs Ajay Sharma S/O Shri B.I. Sharma

The Union of India Vs Raj Kishore Saxena S/O Shri K.K. Saxena