- (1.) BY this petition for writ, the petitioner a Nayab Tehsildar is questioning correctness validity and propriety of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order dated 14.12.2011. In brief, facts of the case are that the Collector, Sirohi while exercising powers under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) initiated a disciplinary action against the petitioner under a memorandum dated 27.6.2011. The petitioner was charged for negligence in discharging his duties in a case pertaining to removal of encroachments. In the statement of allegation, the disciplinary authority mentioned that whatever action taken by the delinquent was only with view to establish possession of encroachers on the public land without taking any adequate action for removing the encroachment.
(2.) THE petitioner after receiving the memorandum dated 27.6.2011 made a request to the Collector to permit him to inspect certain records including the file pertaining to "Alpesh Marbles". The disciplinary authority vide communication dated 19.8.2011 allowed the petitioner to have inspection of the file relating to "Alpesh Marbles", however, no permission was given to inspect other records pertaining to which adequate details were not given. The petitioner then submitted an explanation to the allegation levelled and after considering that, the disciplinary authority by the order impugned dated 14.12.2011 held the petitioner guilty for commission of a misconduct. Accordingly, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment was imposed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, an appeal was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, but that too came to be rejected vide order dated 9.7.2012. To impeach validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter), the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 are judicial proceedings, therefore, if any error was committed by the petitioner while deciding the cases under Section 91 then that is a judicial error and not a misconduct. The disciplinary authority as such erred by taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. True it is, the proceedings under Section 91 are of judicial nature and a judicial error is not a misconduct, but in the instant matter the allegation against the petitioner was not of giving any wrong finding in judicial proceedings, but of negligence while dealing with the cases under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. The disciplinary authority after considering the entire material available on record and also the explanation tendered by the petitioner arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner was quite negligent in discharging his duties. The disciplinary authority also arrived at the conclusion that no effort was made by the petitioner to remove the encroachment. The failing of the petitioner in discharging his duties is not a judicial error but a serious negligence that comes within the purview of misconduct. The disciplinary authority, thus, was right in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner.
(3.) THE second argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the order impugned is in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. This argument too is bereft of merit. The disciplinary authority while serving a notice as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 sought an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner before submitting explanation desired to have inspection of records. The disciplinary authority permitted the petitioner to inspect the record, particulars of which were adequately given by the petitioner. No inspection was permitted relating to the records for which particulars were not given. The petitioner without raising objection for that made an inspection and submitted his explanation to the allegation levelled. After considering the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an appropriate order. If the petitioner was having any objection, then he should have raised that before submitting his explanation but that was not done. As such, I do not find any wrong with the order imposing a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958. The petition for writ, for the reasons given above, is dismissed.;