Title: Jasram Jat v. Inspector General of Police & Ors
Decided on: 11th October, 2023
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2012
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Introduction
The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that the Disciplinary and Appellate authority cannot take disciplinary action against a Police constable who was reportedly intoxicated while on duty without recognising the evidence and providing adequate justifications.
Facts of the Case
On December 17, 2010, a constable was discovered at the Police Line Campus with injuries from a fall while intoxicated. Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, was allegedly broken by the petitioner while he was a member of the discipline force, according to the respondent authorities. The petitioner claimed he had a mental illness and had fallen down on the day of the occurrence as a result of the medication he was taking.
He received a chargesheet for this wrongdoing under Rule 17 of the 1958 Rules, and in 2011 he was punished by having one annual increase withheld from him without any cumulative impact. The Superintendent of Police, who judged the petitioner guilty of misconduct, indicated the punishment in a one-line order. Contrary to Rule 30 (Consideration of Appeals) of the 1958 Rules, the appeal proceedings before the Inspector General of Police likewise came to a conclusion in a similar way. In order to get judicial review of the erroneous rulings pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged these two orders before the High Court.
Courts analysis and decision
The legal issue in this petition is whether the punishment order against an employee must provide the reasons or recording one line conclusion is enough to punish him for the alleged misconduct?
It was observed by the Court that according to a perusal of rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, the Disciplinary Authority has been given broad discretionary powers to punish the delinquent employee based on his or her wrongdoing. The penalising authority’s judgement must be reasonable, legitimate, consistent, governed by the law, and guided by Rule. It shouldn’t be capricious, ambiguous, or coercive, and it shouldn’t be ruled by rumours.
Further stating, “Mere recording of conclusions is not sufficient for compliance of the requirement of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. The order must contain reasons, which could show application of mind and which could disclose mental application of the competent authority to the contents of the enquiry report and connected record”
It was noted by the single bench that the penalty order was issued against the petitioner without taking into account either of their defences or the results of the preliminary investigation.
Reiterating the apex court’s decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (UOI) (1990) 4 SCC 595, the Court said that the contested ruling is silent on the specific facts that led Superintendent of Police Tonk to find the petitioner’s charges to be proven, including the records and evidence that supported that determination.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan
