IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6994/1997. Mohan Lal Goyal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- April 1, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Garg, for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who was at the material time was serving as Executive Officer Gr.III in the Municipal Board, Badi, challenging the order of penalty dated 15/11/1988 and the order by which his appeal thereagainst was rejected vide order dated 2/6/1996 and another order of penalty dated 26/4/1993. By the first order dated 15/11/1988, petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and by the second order dated 26/4/1993, petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. In both the cases, enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal Rules, 1958) (for short, CCA Rules) was proceeded against him and was awarded minor penalties.
2) Contention of Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Director, Local Bodies Rajasthan, Jaipur could not have initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules because those powers were delegated by the Government vide notification dated 13/9/1983 to the District Collectors who were Disciplinary Authorities of Executive Officers of various Municipalities for the purpose of Rule 17 to inflict the minor penalty. It is contended that in the memorandum of charge-sheet issued under Rule 17 dated 17/2/1987, petitioner has been punished on flimsy ground for leaving the headquarter without permission of the Municipal Board whereas, petitioner left the headquarters in connection with the official work for Jaipur and certificate to this effect was produced which was issued by the Accounts Officer of the Directorate of the Local Bodies. The allegation that there was Lok Adalat organized on 12/8/1986 and petitioner was not present, was wholly unfounded. Petitioner left the headquarters after seeking due permission from the Administrator of the Municipal Board for the period 8/8/1986 to 10/8/1986. Petitioner applied for casual leave for 11/8/1986 & 12/8/1986 in connection with admission of his younger brother and also produced the certificate to this effect. Second enquiry under Rule 17 was such that no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. Petitioner came to know about this second enquiry only after the penalty was imposed. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the arguments raised by the petitioner. It is contended that as a result of aforesaid two penalties, petitioner has been superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Executive Officer Gr.III and three of his juniors namely; Rajjak Ahmed, Rajendra Prasad Singhal and Jagdish Prasad Choudhary were promoted vide order dated 27/10/1997 for the vacancies of the years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
3) Shri G.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was held guilty in both the matters. Petitioner left the headquarter without permission of the Administrator namely; the District Collector on 28/7/1986. He went to Jaipur and when he came back, sought to justify his absence by producing a certificate from the Accounts Officer of the Directorate of the Local Bodies which was wholly insufficient because he could not leave the headquarter without prior permission of the Administrator. Contention that he had obtained the permission from the Administrator on telephone was not believed because the Administrator disputed this fact. Secondly, in that very proceedings, there was another charge against him that he was granted leave for 9/8/1986 and 10/8/1986 but he returned back to headquarter at Bhusawar on 20/8/1986. Mere assertion that he came back on 15/8/1986 was not believed by the disciplinary authority as petitioner failed to prove the same by any witnesses thereof. Lok Adalat was organized on 12/8/1986 in which, number of cases relating to Municipal Board were fixed where petitioner was duty obliged to come. He discharged his duties. One another charge-sheet dated 24/9/1992 was alleged to have been sent to the petitioner by registered post but it did not return back. Thereafter, yet another charge-sheet dated 2/3/1993 was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 30/3/1993. Petitioner was adopting an adamant attitude and ultimately the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26/4/1993 passed the final order imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that criteria for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Gr.II from the post of Executive Officer Gr.III was purely the merit.
4) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that in both the mattes, petitioner has been proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 which are meant for minor penalties. Contention that documents produced by the petitioner would be considered by the disciplinary authority in the first matter cannot be accepted because the certificate procured by the petitioner from the Accountant of Directorate of Local Bodies was very much considered by the disciplinary authority who was of the view that mere production of the certificate at a later stage would not justify the action of the petitioner in leaving the headquarter without permission of the Administrator. Further contention that he also applied for leave for 11/8/1986 & 12/8/1986 in connection with the admission of his younger brother also has not been believed because he was granted leave only for two days i.e. for 9/8/1986 and 10/8/1986 and no leave was granted for 11/8/1986 & 12/8/1986. According to the respondents, petitioner turned back on duties on 20/8/1986, which means that he absented from the headquarter and remained away from headquarter from 11/8/1986 to 19/8/1986. In the second charge-sheet also, only minor penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed because it was petitioner who was responsible for engaging 40 Sweepers on daily wage basis without prior sanction from the Director Local Bodies. In fact, sanction was granted for engaging only 20 Sweepers whereas petitioner engaged 40 Sweepers. It cannot therefore be said that both the penalties have been awarded to the petitioner without there being any basis. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the penalties imposed.
5) Coming now to the question whether these penalties may have adverse affect in assailing the promotion matter of juniors. Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 provides for criteria and eligibility for promotion. Rule 24(1) thereof provides that selection for promotion from lowest post or category of posts in the service to the next higher post or category of posts in the Service as mentioned in the Schedule shall be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the persons who have put in the requisite period of service on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection. Rule 24(4) thereof provides that selection for promotion to all other higher posts or higher categories of posts in the Service as mentioned in the Schedule shall be made on the basis of merit alone. Petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Executive Officer Gr.III whereas, lowest post in the Service was Executive Officer Gr.IV. It would therefore be evident that for promotion from the post of Executive Officer Gr.IV to Executive Officer Gr.III, the criteria would be seniority-cum-merit whereas for promotion to any higher post i.e. from the post of Executive Officer Gr.III to Executive Officer Gr.II which is the higher post in question, criteria for promotion would be merit alone. The penalty orders therefore, considered in either manner, would not affect the future promotional aspect of the petitioner particularly when, it is informed that petitioner was subsequently promoted some time in the year 2000.
6) I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil