- (1.) THE very question, which has cropped up in the instant petition, is whether penalty of withholding of annual grade increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty or major penalty. Scorning the facts in detail, the facts in brevity giving rise to this petition are that while working as Assistant Manager at Hotel Shilpi, Ranakpur, under Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short, "RTDC"), the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action for his alleged omissions and commissions. As a consequence of subjecting the petitioner to the disciplinary action, a memorandum and charge -sheet dated 07.09.2001 was served on him containing inter -alia four charges under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short, "Rules 1980"). The charge -sheet aforesaid was replied by the petitioner denying the charges. Although memorandum and charge -sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, which envisages procedure for major penalty but to petitioner's dismay the competent authority, on receipt of his reply/explanation, has resorted to Rule 10 of the Rules 1980 which prescribes procedure for imposition of minor penalty, and passed the impugned punishment order dated 12.06.2001, whereby the petitioner was visited with punishment of withholding of two annual increment grades with cumulative effect. 1. Being aggrieved from the order of punishment dated 12.06.2001, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the efforts of the petitioner proved abortive and the Appellate Authority while concurring with the decision of the disciplinary authority, dismissed his appeal by its order dated 13.12.2002.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sodha, has argued that when the charge -sheet was served on petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980, it was desirable from the respondents to conduct a full fledged disciplinary enquiry in strict adherence of the procedure provided therein. Learned counsel submits that by not following procedure provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980, the disciplinary authority has flagrantly violated Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, and therefore, the impugned punishment order is not sustainable. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980 deals with nature of penalties, which are classified as minor penalties and major penalties: Minor penalties are prescribed as under: - (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of promotion/ increments. (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation. Major penalties are as infra: - (iv) Reduction to a lower grade or post or a stage in a time scale. (v) Removal from service. (vi) Dismissal from service. A close reading of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980, makes it crystal clear that the provisions contained therein are parameteria to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "Rules of 1958"). Similarly, the language employed under Rule 9 and 10 of the Rules of 1980 are also akin to that of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958 respectively.
(3.) THE legal position on the subject is no more res - integra and the same has also been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Krishna Dutta Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in [1987(1) RLR 346]. The Division Bench, while dealing with the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments, with cumulative effect has found that it is a major penalty within the four corners of Rule 14 of the Rules 1958, and therefore, before imposing the said penalty, it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure provided under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The Division Bench made following observations in para 10 of the verdict: - "A perusal of the seven kinds of penalties specified under Rule 14 shows that under clause (ii) only withholding of increment has been mentioned but it nowhere specified that withholding of increments could also be given with cumulative effect. In case a penalty of withholding of grade increment is imposed for one year or two years then such Government servant is put to a financial loss for a limited period and he becomes entitled to his usual grade increment after such period of one year or two years. While in case of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect the Government servant is put to a financial loss for the entire period of his future service and the result is that he is put to one grade increment less for the entire period of his remaining service. In our view such penalty of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as provided as one of the penalties under clause (iv) of Rule 14 are equivalent and have the same effect. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to explain any difference in the aforesaid two kinds of penalties. If a Government servant is given a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale, then also such Government servant is put to a loss of one grade increment for the entire period of his service after punishment. It remains undisputed that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as specified in clause (iv) of Rule 14 is a major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules. We are, thus, clearly of the view that in the present case the penalty imposed on the appellant was a major penalty and as the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 has not been followed as such the order imposing penalty is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed." ;