Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nemi Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Nemi Chand vs The State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 07, 1993
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/761081

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 48 of 1993
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rules 14 & 17--Enquiry conducted Under Rule 17--Penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative--Held, it is ab initio void.;The penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which cannot be imposed ...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nemi Chand

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1993WLN(UC)95

Excerpt

rajasthan civil service (classification control & appeal) rules, 1958 - rules 14 & 17--enquiry conducted under rule 17--penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative--held, it is ab initio void.;the penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which cannot be imposed in an enquiry under rule 17 of the c.c.a. rules, 1958, the order dated 19.12.92 (annexure. 4) passed by the superintending engineer, p.h.e.d., circle pali, is ab initio void, and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.;writ allowed - - the respondents, if they so like, can proceed against the petitioner for imposing appropriate punishment or for holding an enquiry in accordance with law......against him under rule 17 of the c.c.a. rules, 1958, but the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed by the disciplinary authority in the enquiry. the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority, was, thus, totally wrong and illegal and has been ordered in clear violation of the procedure contained under the c.c.a. rules, 1958. in view of the legal position, which is discernible from the various division bench judgments of this court that the penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which cannot he imposed in an enquiry rule 17 of the c.c.a. rules, !958, the order dated 19.12.92 (annexure. 4) passed by the superintending engineer, p.h.e.d., circle pali, is ab initio void, and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. as the order dated 19.12.92 (annexure. 4) is ab initio void, therefore, the petitioner can directly approach this court in the writ jurisdiction instead of filing an appeal.3. in the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. the order dated 19-12-92(annexure. 4), passed by the superintending engineer, public health and engineering department, circle pali, imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect is, therefore, quashed and set-aside. the respondents, if they so like, can proceed against the petitioner for imposing appropriate punishment or for holding an enquiry in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 19-12-92 (Annexure. 4), passed by the Superintending Engineer, public Health and Engineering Department, Circle Pali, by which a penally of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental enquiry held against him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the C.C.A. Rules, 1958).

2. The petitioner was working as the Upper Division Clerk in the public Health and Engineering Department at Sojat (district Pali). A departmental enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958. After holding the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed on the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect by its order dated 19.12.92 (Annexure. 4). The punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which can be imposed only in an enquiry initiated under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, and not in an enquiry conducted under Rule 17 of the CC.A. Rules, 1958. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, and the enquiry was held against him under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, but the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry. The penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, was, thus, totally wrong and illegal and has been ordered in clear violation of the procedure contained under the C.C.A. Rules, 1958. In view of the legal position, which is discernible from the various Division Bench judgments of this Court that the penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which cannot he imposed in an enquiry Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, !958, the order dated 19.12.92 (Annexure. 4) passed by the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Circle Pali, is ab initio void, and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. As the order dated 19.12.92 (Annexure. 4) is ab initio void, therefore, the petitioner can directly approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction instead of filing an appeal.

3. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated 19-12-92(Annexure. 4), passed by the Superintending Engineer, public Health and Engineering Department, Circle Pali, imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect is, therefore, quashed and set-aside. The respondents, if they so like, can proceed against the petitioner for imposing appropriate punishment or for holding an enquiry in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial