Rajasthan High Court: In a case wherein, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the chargesheet; punishment order; appellate order rejecting the departmental appeal; and order rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gaur, J., noted that the petitioner himself did not appear before the enquiry officer, did not even file any response to the enquiry report and remained absent from duty after service of the chargesheet. Thus, the Court opined that the authorities had not committed error in initiating enquiry against the petitioner and passing the punishment order dismissing the petitioner form service.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and was posted at ‘C’ Company, 12th Battalion RAC (IR) Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet dated 14-09-2007, issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘1958 Rules’). The petitioner pleaded that the memo along with the statement of allegations were based on applications submitted by the petitioner’s father in-law, containing false allegations that petitioner had illicit relationship with a constable and according to the memo of allegations, the petitioner was married and had two children. Despite being married, the petitioner had illicit relationship with a married lady, who was a constable and worked in Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) at New Delhi. Moreover, in spite of the persuasion by the petitioner’s in-laws, he maintained an illicit relationship and ignored to look after his wife and children. Thus, the said act was treated to be an act of indiscipline and a serious misconduct of leading an immoral life.
The petitioner submitted that after the receipt of chargesheet, he requested the legible copy of all the documents and requested to extend the time period to submit his representation. Subsequently, the time limit to file the representation was extended for ten days, but that was meaningless without the supply of copy of the documents. Further, the petitioner filed various applications to grant him thirty days privileged leave for the preparation of his representation, however the request was not accepted, and time was also not extended.
The petitioner submitted that due to arbitrary and unconstitutional act of the respondents, he went into distress and mental agony with psychiatric illness. Further, the petitioner contended that without providing him an opportunity to effectively represent himself against the charge-sheet, the respondents arbitrarily appointed an Enquiry Officer.
The Disciplinary authority passed an ex-parte order dated 31-03-2008 (‘punishment order’), thereby, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner contended that punishment order was passed without providing copies of the enquiry report, witnesses’ statements recorded during enquiry and documents marked as exhibits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a department appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 10-02-2009, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the petitioner filed a review petition under Rule 34 of 1958 Rules, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25-5-2017.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (‘1971 Rules’), a government servant had to maintain devotion to duty and dignity of the office and the government servant should also follow the code of conduct regarding the manner in which his duty was ought to be performed and apart from his working hours, he also had to follow the norms/conduct rules, prescribed by the employer. The Court opined that a government servant had to maintain himself in private and in public life maintaining high standards and he government servant could not be permitted to assert his right in private life by not following the norms or conduct rules as prescribed by the employer.
The Court further opined that the government servant was supposed to discharge his duties while working in office and beyond the office hours. The Court opined that “the divesting status of a government servant from his office duty-hours to lead his personal life the way he likes by leading an immoral life, cannot be countenanced by bestowing unfettered right in favour of such government servant.”
The Court relied on Joseph Shine v. Union of India, , wherein the Supreme Court made it clear that if there was a provision in the rules that governed the employer and employee relationship, where certain acts were treated as misconduct or if any person was alleged to lead an immoral life, declaration of Section 497 of the Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional would not preclude the employer to take disciplinary action against the government servant. The Court also opined that certain acts might not be ‘criminal’, but they were ‘civil wrong’.
The Court opined that allegations against the person of leading adulterous life might not result into any criminal proceedings, but if the same act was against the conduct rules, the employer’s right to initiate disciplinary proceedings could not be taken away. Further the Court opined that “the law is codified and rulemaking authority if has prescribed certain conduct rules to be followed by a government servant, the same cannot be tested on the anvil of customs prevailing in other countries or some out of context reference to the Indian Mythology.”
The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable, (1992) 4 SCC 54 wherein it was held that the police service was a disciplined service and required to maintain strict discipline. The Court opined that the allegation stated in the charge sheet could not be termed as vague allegation and the Disciplinary Authority considered the entire enquiry record where the enquiry officer had recorded statements of nine persons and then found the petitioner guilty of charge levelled against him, thus, it could not be said that the Disciplinary Authority had passed a mechanical order, without application of mind.
The Court opined that as per the petitioner’s request, the time to file reply to the charge sheet was extended but even then, the petitioner did not file the reply. Further on perusal of the record, the Court opined that the petitioner himself did not appear before the enquiry officer, did not file any response to the enquiry report and remained absent from duty after service of charge sheet. The petitioner’s stubborn attitude of not participating in disciplinary proceedings and remaining absent from duty spoke volume about his conduct and devotion to his duty. The Court relied on Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava and opined that the authorities had not committed an error in initiating an enquiry against the petitioner and passing the punishment order dismissing the petitioner form service.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949, Order dated 20-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ram Kumar Swami, Rakesh Kumar Swami, Advocates
For the Respondents: P.S. Naruka, Advocate on behalf of Rupin Kala, Government Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
