Full Judgment
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:
03. 04/2014 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER
:::
03. d April 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the petitioner. Ms. Kusum Rao, Addl. Govt. Counsel. -- BY THE COURT:
1. The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Mathur, at the relevant point of time was working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Tele-communication, Jodhpur, he was served with a Charge-sheet (Annex.1) dated 06.08.2007 and the substance of the charges is that he used the official vehicle provided to him during the period 2002 to 2004, and in all approximately 100 kilometers of such travel by the official vehicle as per log-book record was improper and the use of official vehicle for official purpose was not properly explained.
2. Thereafter, by the order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annex.5 dated 11.08.2011, the petitioner was saddled with the penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:
03. 04/2014 2/5 without cumulative effect, however, the concerned drivers, namely, Pahad Singh and Sukhdeo, in the same enquiry were exonerated by the concerned authority.
3. Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned disciplinary action was on account of extraneous reasons and politically motivated and merely because the petitioner being in senior position of Additional Superintendent of Police, counter-signed the actual entries made in the log-book by the concerned drivers, for which sufficient explanation of the travel undertaken by him, was also furnished before the Enquiry Officer, but ignoring the same, the petitioner has been imposed with the said penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, while the concerned and relevant persons for making such entries in the log-book, who were drivers at the relevant point of time, have bee exonerated and this renders the impugned order wholly illegal and foundation-less. The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent- Department justifying the impugned order date 11.08.2011 (Annex.5). Ms. Kusum Rao, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel, appearing for the respondent- Department also submitted that user of the official vehicle during the relevant period was not sufficiently explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the imposition of the penalty, which is although minor, does not require any interference by this Court. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:
03. 04/2014 3/5 5. This Court in another writ petition filed by the petitioner being SBCWP No.9307/2012-Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 28.03.2013, has quashed the other impugned penalty order relating to other charge against the same petitioner by observing as under: -
“4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, produced a copy of the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jaipur, during the pendency of this writ petition, whereby the said authority has sanctioned the leave to the petitioner for the period 13.06.2005 to 25.06.2005 and medical leave from 27.06.2005 to 05.08.2005 and, regularized his stay at the same place of posting and therefore, the question of joining during the said period at Jaipur, could not arise and the findings of insubordination against the petitioner, cannot be upheld and, therefore, in view of order dated 17.07.2013, the impugned order imposing the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The copy of the order dated 17.07.2013 is taken on record.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 16.02.2012 (Annex.5) is quashed and set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.”. 6. From a bare perusal of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner in the present case also, it clearly appears that no misconduct can be attributed to the petitioner who merely counter- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:
03. 04/2014 4/5 signed the actual entries made in the log-book by the concerned drivers of the official vehicle and this Court is at a loss to understand that the concerned drivers, who have driven the vehicle and made the entries in the log-books have been exonerated and on the same set of alleged evidence brought on record before the Enquiry Officer, how the present petitioner, who at best was required to counter-sign such log-book entries, could be saddled with the said penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect by the Disciplinary Authority.
7. The Disciplinary Authority apparently has caused serious prejudice to the present petitioner and this kind of so-called charges against a senior official of the police, is bound to lower their morale, to a great extent, and unfortunately it appears that this aspect of the matter has not been taken into account while passing the impugned order by the Disciplinary Authority for alleged improper use of official vehicle about four years back to the extent of 100 kilometers spread in 3 years. Therefore, there remains no justification whatsoever, when the concerned drivers, who made entries in the log-book, have been exonerated by the said Disciplinary Authority, to still retain and impose the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on the present petitioner. Therefore, the allegations about the extraneous reasons for such impugned action against the petitioner though not gone into detail by this Court and advisably so, appears to have some force. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1613/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:
03. 04/2014 5/5 8. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to uphold this penalty order for any reason whatsoever. The writ petition deserves acceptance and the same is accordingly allowed and the impugned penalty order (Annex.5) dated 11.08.2011 is quashed and set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/- 24