1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 10.05.2005, whereby the penalty of censure has been imposed on him. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953 along with statement of charge. It was alleged in the statement of allegation that while the petitioner was working as L.D.C. in criminal section, he remained negligent in discharging his duty and failed to communicate the order dated 21.07.1997 passed by the High Court in S.B.Civil Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 to the trial court - Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gangapurcity. It was alleged that according to the order of the High Court, the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within the stipulated period of two months. Thereafter, in another S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.782/1997 (Ramphool Vs. State of Rajasthan), the High Court vide order dated 10.11.1997 had observed that the earlier order passed on 21.01.1997 in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 was not complied with in its true spirit by the trial court and consequently, High Court ordered that copy of the order be placed before the Registrar to make an enquiry in the service record of the concerned Magistrate.
3. It was alleged that the petitioner was thoroughly negligent in discharging of his duty and failed to communicate the order passed by the High Court on 25.01.1997 and there was general practice to communicate the order of the High Court immediately to the lower court and this practice was given complete go-bye by the petitioner, which hampered the judicial process. It was alleged that in consequence of such act of the petitioner, the Judicial Officer concerned suffered mental agony and torture. All above acts amounted to negligent and dereliction of duty treating them to a gross misconduct.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him on 26.07.2013. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Deputy Registrar (Admn.) as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 29.07.2004. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority-Registrar (Admn.) imposed the penalty of censure vide his order dated 10.05.2005, which is impugned in the present petition.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that due to penalty imposed upon him, the second selection grade was delayed and granted after completion of period of 18 years w.e.f. 14.07.2005 vide order dated 03.03.2006.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following legal submissions before this Court:
1. That the impugned order has been passed in most mechanical manner without finding the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct.
2. That there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner at all as the alleged order passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 dated 25.1.1997, did not give any time bound direction as such to decide the case and there was no direction to send the order of the Court immediately.
3. That the alleged ingredients of misconduct of not sending the order of High Court immediately, were not existing as the charge-sheet itself shows that there was practice of sending the file and as such, there was no rule or established procedure that the clerk concerned was duty bound to send the file immediately on receipt of order when there was no specific direction in the order of High Court to the trial court.
4. The Registrar (Admn.)-cum-Disciplinary Authority is not a competent person to impose the penalty.
7. Per contra, Mr.N.K.Maloo, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that impugned order has rightly been passed and the Disciplinary Officer was lenient in imposing the punishment.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record.
10. Issue regarding the Disciplinary Authority has already been decided by us vide order of even date in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.294/2007 (Murari Lal Gupta Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr.) and we are of the opinion that Registrar (Admn.) is fully competent to impose the penalty as per Rule 12 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953 being a Disciplinary Authority duly empowered by the Chief Justice.
11. So far as impugned penalty order is concerned, a bare perusal of the said order reveals that Disciplinary Authority has recorded a finding that mistake committed by the petitioner appeared to be bonafide and no malafide has been attributed against him. The bare perusal of the record/order dated 25.01.1997 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.30/1997 also shows that there was no direction to send the copy of the order immediately to the court concerned and moreover, there was no direction also that the criminal case was to be decided by the court below within two months.
12. The allegation against the petitioner was not based on actual facts obtaining at the time of issuance of charge-sheet. It cannot be alleged that the petitioner has committed any misconduct by not sending the file immediately to the trial court. In absence of such direction, it could not have been presumed by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct. The very foundation of issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner was misconceived.
13. The Disciplinary Authority has also not applied its mind while considering the entire record of the enquiry. The presumption drawn by enquiry officer that the petitioner was duty bound to communicate the order dated 25.01.1997 and he was guilty of not conveying same to the trial court, even till after expiry of two months, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties, the said finding of the enquiry officer itself was without factual foundation and contrary to record. In opinion of the Court, the penalty order which has been passed against the petitioner is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. The Disciplinary Authority being a quasi- judicial authority is required to consider the entire record of the enquiry, including the reply of the delinquent and the enquiry report. The plea of the petitioner has altogether not been considered and he has made a scapegoat by punishing even with minor penalty of censure.
14. The penalty of censure may be minor penalty but has its own effect in the service career of an employee and he suffers in method of promotion, grant of selection scale, etc. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered due to the penalty of censure as he was deprived to get the selection grade on the completion of 18 years as his entitlement was deferred due to penalty of censure.
15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The penalty order dated 10.05.2005 is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled for consequential benefit.
