CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 30. 4. 96 (Annex. 2) and seeking a direction for release of retirement dues alongwith interest.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on the date of retirement, i. e. 30. 4. 96, petitioner was served a charge sheet for the alleged misconduct committed by him during the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 alongwith statement of allegations under rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1961 (for short, "the Rules, 1961) and his post retiral benefits had been withheld. He moved the authorities and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 19. 12. 96 (Annex. 12) directed the Vikas Adhikari to prepare the pension case of the petitioner, but the same have also not been paid. The charge sheet has been challenged on the ground that the same has been issued by the Vikas Adhikari, respondent No. 5, who had no competence to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, it remained inconsequential. On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondents that the Controlling Authority can always initiate the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The issue involved herein is no more res integra as the same has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In State of M. P. vs. Sardul Singh (1), the Supreme Court held that Article 311 (1) of the Constitution provides for guarantee to a civil servant that he would not be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to his appointing authority but it does not provide for further guarantee that disciplinary proceedings in case of dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated and conducted by the authority mentioned therein. The Court observed as under:- " But for the incorporation of Article 311 of the Constitution even in respect of matters provided therein, Rules could have been framed under Article 309. The provisions in Article 311 confer additional rights on the civil servant. Hence, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the guarantee given under Article 311 (1) includes within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated or conducted by the authorities mentioned in the Article. ' In State of U. P. vs. Ram Naresh Lal (2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was nothing in the Constitution debarring the Government from conferring powers on an officer other than the Appointing Authority to dismiss a Government servant, provided he was not subordinate in rank to the Appointing Authority.
(3.) IN Sampuran Singh vs. State of Punjab (3), the Apex Court held that Disciplinary Authority may be different from the Appointing Authority and, thus, it is not nece- ssary that an employee can be removed only by the Appointing Authority. Article 311 (1) of the Constitution requires that the Government servant should not be dismissed/removed from service by an Authority below his Appointing Authority. Thus, he can be removed by the Authority higher than his appointing Authority. In Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of Defence vs. S. Denial, (4), the Supreme Court held that even if the appointing Authority delegates the power of appointment to a subordinate authority, it can still initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the person so appointed by his delegatee. In P. V. Srinivasa Sastry & Ors. vs. Comptroller and Auditor General & Ors. (5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- " It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences and the framers of the Constitution do not consider it necessary to guarantee even that too holder of civil post. . . . . at the same time, this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom the proceeding is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceeding should be initiated. In absence of a rule, any supervisory authority who can be held to be a controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding. " ;