IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5235/1997 Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. The Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Date of order : 18/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vigyan Shah for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Pareek for the respondents. ******
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 12.11.1990 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect.
Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was prejudiced by non supply of the enquiry report because from the enquiry report which the respondents have filed with the reply at Annexure-R/1, he came to know that out of total two charges, only one charge was proved against him, which was to the effect that he did not inform the employer about the business of his wife, thereby, Rule 15(1) and 15(2) of the RSEB Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 was violated by him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order of penalty, which appeal was allowed by Whole-time Members Committee on 6.11.1995. In that, the order of penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was converted into stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect, but the respondents when the writ petition was filed, did not implement that order.
On perusal of the copy of the enquiry report, it appears that out of two charges, only one charge was taken as proved against the petitioner and the appellate authority on consideration of this aspect that the petitioner though did inform about the fact of business of his wife, but after the delay of one year, converted the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to that of without cumulative effect. This fact has not been controverted even by the respondents, which is evident from para 6 of their reply.
In view of the nature of penalty and the fact that subsequently the same has been mitigated further by reduction thereof, it cannot be said that any such grave prejudice was caused to the petitioner by mere non supply of the enquiry report. However, it is made clear that the respondents would effect the penalty order only in the manner so as to stop two grade increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect as has been given out by them in para 6 of their reply. The order be implemented accordingly. If any recovery is made from the petitioner, the same should be refunded to him with interest @ 6% per annum.
The writ petition is disposed of. However, if the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits from conversion of major penalty to minor, he shall be entitled to represent the respondents, which they shall consider and decide in accordance with law.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/