S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing the order Annexure-1 dated January 24, 1985 of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, by which the penalty of the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was impose on him.
(2.) BRIEFLY recapitulated, the case set-up in the petition is that the petitioner was working in Stamp Reporting Section in the Bench of the High Court at Jaipur in May, 1984. On May 10, 1984, he passed the file of S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 169/1984 (Narain Ram v. State of Rajasthan) without ascertaining whether the impugned order was filed by the party or that it was on record. When the case came up before learned Single judge, he-passed an order on July 25, 1984 directing the Deputy Registrar To take nece-ssary action against the defaulter. Thereupon the Additional. Registrar initiated an inquiry against the petitioner under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the C. C. A. Rules ). The petitioner was informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which the action was proposed to betaken. He-was called-upon to take any representation and file reply or explanation as he wished to make. The petitioner submitted his reply and representation and he same was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Additional Registrar. He was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The result was that the penalty of with holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by the Additional Registrar by the impugned order Annexure 1. The imposed order was assailed mainly on two grounds (1) the Additional Registrar was not the Disciplinary Authority and as such he could not impose any penalty; and (2) the penalty for with holding two grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not be awarded without following the procedure under rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules. The procedure under rule 16 of the CCA. Rules for imposing major penalties was not followed by the Additional Registrar. In the return filed by the respondents, all the allegations were accepted,, except that (1) the Additional Registrar was not be Disciplinary Authority; and (2 the withholding of increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty. So far this Court is concerned, a consistent view has been taken that the imposition of withholding of grade increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty and it can be awarded after following the procedure under rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules. Admittedly, in the instant case, no procedure under rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules was followed. The petition should, therefore, be allowed. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul for the petitioner and Mr. D. S. Shishodia learned counsel for the respondents. As a rule, we should follow the view expressed by this Court, according to which the withholding of increments with cumulative effect has been taken to be a major penalty. Mr. Shishodia however, wants that the view taken by this Court requires reconsideration. We had, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(3.) THE petitioner, as regards the disciplinary action, is governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953. Rule 12 of these Rules, enumerating the penalties, which can be imposed on a delinquent, is a re-production of rule 14 of the CCA. Rules. For convenience, we may reproduce rule 12 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (for short 'the High Court Rules): - "12- Penalties: - THE following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed by the Chief Justice or, subject to any special order of the Chief Justice, by the Registrar upon the persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court, namely: - (i) Censure; (ii) With holding of increments or promotion; (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss casued to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or (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 disqualification for future employment, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (rest not necessary) Rule 13 of the High Court Rules lays down mode of inquiries for imposing the penalties. It reads as under:- "13-Inquiries into conduct of members of staff: THE rules or orders regulating inquiries into allegations against servants of the State Government shall apply with the necessary modifications and adaptations to inquiries into the conduct of members of the staff attached to the High Court. " Rule 13 of the High Court Rules has, thus, adopted the C. C. A, Rules for conducting and regulating the inquiries in connection with the misconduct of members of the staff of the High Court. Rules 16 of the C. C. A. Rules lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties while rule 17 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iii) of rule 14, namely, (i) censure, (ii) with-holding of increments or promotion and (iii) recovery of the pecuniary loss, have been taken as minor penalties under rule 17 while the remaining four penalties, specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii), including that of the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, have been taken as major penalties under rule 16 of the C. C. A. Rules. ;