Skip to content


Karan Singh S/O Chittar Singh Vs. Collector and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 298/82
Judge
Reported in1983WLN154
AppellantKaran Singh S/O Chittar Singh
RespondentCollector and anr.
Excerpt:
.....authority was competent to impose this penalty also. however, before being so, since in the notice, removal has been mentioned and 'dismissal' is undoubtedly an aggravated form of punishment because it debars a civil servant from future employment, the departmental authority could not have ordered 'dismissal'.;(b) words & phrases - 'removal' & 'dismissal' in rule 14 of rajasthan civil services (classification control & appeal) rules, 1958--distinction between.;writ accepted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the..........authority was competent to impose this penalty also. however, before doing so, since in the notice, removal has been mentioned and 'dismissal' is undoubtedly an aggravated form of punishment because it debars a civil servant from future employment, the departmental authority could not have ordered 'dismissal'.18. so far as the submission of shri bajaj, that it is a case of no evidence and, there, the charges against the employee has not been proved is concerned; i am convinced that the inquiry report produced proceeds on cogent grounds and the record produced is self explanatory to have proved the charges. one may agree or disagree with the findings, but it cannot be said that it is a case of 'no evidence.'19. i am, therefore, convinced that the departmental authority was.....
Judgment:

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. This is a writ petition by Karan Singh who was Patwari in the services of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Karan Singh, has been dismissed on February 2, 1982 vide an order (Annexure I).

2. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in the year 1975. In that inquiry, the two charges were levelled against the petitioner and, after the inquiry they were found to be proved.

3. According to the inquiry report, the inquiry officer was of the opinion that the following two charges were proved:

1 ;g gS fd dj.k flag iVokjh us iVokj e.M+y vUFkM+k es iVokjh in ij dk;Z djrs gq, Jh Hkksiky flag o y{e.k flag jktiwr xzke cFkokM+k es 1402@& :Ik;s olwy djds ml jkf'k dk fl;kgk es vey ugh djds vigj.k fd;k A

2 ;g gS fd Jh dj.k flag us jlhn la0 25752@14 dh r`rh; izfr Jh j?kq ukFk oxSjg tkV ftudh vksj ls 10-06 iSls tek gq, Fks dks ugh nsdj vius ikl j[kh rFkk bl r`rh; izfr ij mijh ysdku djrs gq, vjksi la0 izFke es of.kZr jkf'k dk vadu djds Jh Hkskiky flag o y{e.k flag ds olwy 'kqnk 1402@& :0 dh mugs QthZ jlhn cukdj ns A bl izdkj Jh dj.k flag us Hkksiky flag o y{e.k flag ds lkFk /kks[kk /kM+h dh A

4. In the inquiry, the evidence of Laxmansingh, Raghunathsingh, Govind Singh and Sitaram was recorded on behalf of the department and the petitioner examined, himself, in defence.

5. After submitting the inquiry report by the inquiry officer, the Collector, Bundi served a show cause notice (Ex. XIV). This notice is in hindi language and the petitioner wants to interpret meaning that, it was a notice for 'removal' only and not for dismissal of service. The exact words used are,

fuEu gLrkjdrkZ us vLk;h #i ls vkidks jkT; lsok ls i`d djus dk fu'p; fd;k gSA

6. Shri D.D. Bajaj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the show cause notice used the words, ^^'lsok ls i`d djus dk fu'p; fd;k A** it means that the petitioner has been removed and not dismissed, and the word used is 'removal' in Hindi and not 'dismissal', the show cause notice, itself, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the principles of law. In the alternative, it was also argued that on the merits of the case, as the department could not prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor it could prove that any such amount in dispute which was alleged to have been misappropriated or recovered from the cultivators concerned which was due and any demand order was issued; the inquiry, itself, held to be void and illegal being against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and so the impugned order of dismissal, by a writ, order or direction in the nature of ceriotrari and mandamus, deserves to be set aside and quashed.

7. It was also argued that inspite of the application filed by the petitioner, the record was not summoned and the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was also not taken into consideration on account of being prejudiced and no reasonable opportunity in defending himself was afforded to the petitioner which resulted in victimisation and harassment having irreparable and substantial loss.

8. Shri S.B. Mathur, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Buudi, controverted the above submissions of Shri Bajaj and, argued that notice to show cause was for 'dismissal' and not for 'removal'. Shri Mathur has further pointed out that the Hindi word, ^^'lsok ls i`d djus dk fu'p; ** does not mean 'removal' in the encyclopaedia but, 'dismissal' is also equal to ^^jkT; lsok ls Ik`Fkd djuk^^.

9. I have carefully considered the respective contentio-.s of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the show cause notice served on the petitioner after the conlcusion of the inquiry, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be removed from the services. As noted above, the Hindi words were, ^^vLFkk;h :Ik ls vkidks jkT; lsok ls Ik`Fkd djus dk fu'p; fd;k gSA** However, in the final order, the petitioner has been dismissed. The order dated the 8th February, 1982 mentions the following words-

^^dj.k flag dks fnukad 8&2&1982 dks jkT; lsok ls cj[kkLr fMl fel dj fn;k x;k gS A

10. Obviously, the terminology used in the show cause notice and the final order is different. In Hindi Dictionary of Government and Educational Words and Phrases by Prof. Dr. Raghu Vira (Second Edition Jund, 1960 - published by International Academy of Indian Culture New Delhi-16) the meaning of word 'dismissal' at p. 529 reads as under:

dismissal 1 (from service) inP;qfr inP;qfr djuk] fo;qfDrlsok fo;qfDr f. (opp. of fu;qfDr2. Law vikLr djuk] viklu n.3- mRltZu n.,4. (of a pupil) fudkyuk n. appointment and dismissal fu;qfDr vkSj O;qfDr

11. Shri Bajaj submitted that Meenakshi Hindi English Dictionary by Dr. Brij Mohan and Dr. Badrinath Kapoor (First edition, 1980-Reprinted, 1981-Meenakshi Prakash Begum Bridge, Meerut) at page 456, the following is relevant-

Ik`Fkd (pri thank) adj. apart, separate, distinct; Ik`Fkd&Ik;`Fkd different; Ik`Fkd djuk (to differentiate/separate; (ii) to 'remove'; Ik`Fkd jguk to keep away.

12. Shri Mathur then submitted that Legal Glossary of Government of India publication, 1979, in which at page 76, the word, 'dismiss' has been mentioned as under:

dismiss : 1. to send away or remove from office, employment or position IknP;qr djuk

2. to reject [kkfjt djuk

13. From the above, it would thus be seen that 'removal' is according to the dictionary meaning, one of the species of the dismissal. The dismissal can mean 'removal' but, 'removal' simplicictor cannot mean 'dismissal', In the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the following major penalties are provided in Rule 14-

(i) censure;

(ii) with holding of increments or promotion;

(iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order;

(iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules;

(v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension;

(vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment;

(vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.

14. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 makes it clear that the rule making authority wanted to make distinction between 'removal' and 'dismissal'. The principal distinction has not been left with to be caused or worked out by the interpreting authorities but really the rule making authority, itself, had said that 'removal' would not disqualify a person from further employment but, 'dismissal' would be a disqualification from further employment. Thus, the distinction is significant and important.

15. In view of the above, since, the show cause notice used the word, Ik`Fkd djuk only, it would be removal simplicitor. As 'removal' and 'dismissal' are two different terms in Rule 14 of Rules of 1958 having different implications, it is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Mathur, appearing for the respondents, because in dictionary meanings the dismissal included removal, therefore, when the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued, bonafide, word 'dismissal' was contemplated.

16. I have got no doubt that, by the show cause notice only penalty of removal was contemplated. This is also obvious from terminology used in the show cause notice in contradistinction to the terminology used in the dismissal order, where expressly, the words, cj[kkLr (dismiss)' was used. It may be a case of inadvertence or mistake but, a civil servant's future is seriously jeopardised by dismissal and therefore, after giving a notice of removal, the dismissal cannot be ordered unless the departmental authorities changes its mind and gives second show cause notice in supersession of the earlier notice which has not been done in the instant case, so far.

17. Obviously, in the instant case, notice to show cause was for 'removal and the penalty imposed was of dismissal. It is true that both of them are major penalities and the departmental authority was competent to impose this penalty also. However, before doing so, since in the notice, removal has been mentioned and 'dismissal' is undoubtedly an aggravated form of punishment because it debars a civil servant from future employment, the departmental authority could not have ordered 'dismissal'.

18. So far as the submission of Shri Bajaj, that it is a case of no evidence and, there, the charges against the employee has not been proved is concerned; I am convinced that the inquiry report produced proceeds on cogent grounds and the record produced is self explanatory to have proved the charges. One may agree or disagree with the findings, but it cannot be said that it is a case of 'no evidence.'

19. I am, therefore, convinced that the departmental authority was justified in issuing a show cause notice & the petitioner cannot claim of being exonerated in the instant case. However, since the show cause notice was only for removal and the final order was for dismissal, the dismissal order cannot be sustained in law.

20. The result of the above discussion is that the order of the dismissal is set aside. However, it would be open to the departmental authority to either impose penalty of removal in terms of the show cause notice after the consideration of the reply of the show cause notice objectively and fairly or, issue a fresh show cause notice for dismissal and then obtain and call for explanation can reply and after considering the reply, a fresh order may be passed, if necessary.

21. As I am setting aside the order of dismissal (Annexure I) dated the 8th February, 1982, the result would be that the petitioner would be entitled to the reinstatement but, it would be open to the disciplinary or departmental authority to keep him order suspension during the period of proceedings which may be taken now in pursuance of this judgment and the question of salary and his all other consequential benefits as prayed for, would be decided alongwith the final order objectively in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules or the relevant law.

22. Consequently, the writ petition is partially accepted, as indicated above, without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //