CASE TITLE:
Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
DATE OF THE CASE:
3rd October, 2023
PARTIES:-
Plaintiff: Hanuman Ram
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
BENCH/JUDGE: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
SUBJECT: "Challenging Government Servant's Dismissal: Audio Clip Evidence, Discrimination Allegation, and Rule 19(ii) Compliance in the Court's Judgment".
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-
- Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, deals with the suspension of a government servant. It outlines the circumstances under which a government servant may be suspended and the procedures to be followed during suspension.
- Rule 17 specifies the procedure to be followed when suspending a government servant. This rule details the steps that must be taken by the appointing authority, the suspension order, and the role of the reviewing authority.
- Rule 18 covers the payment of subsistence allowance to a government servant during the period of suspension. It outlines the conditions under which such an allowance is granted and the rates at which it is paid.
- Rule 19(ii) pertains to the penalties that can be imposed on a government servant upon the conclusion of the suspension period. It details the disciplinary proceedings that may follow suspension and the possible penalties, such as dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
- Article 226 states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.
OVERVIEW:-
In this case, a government servant was dismissed from service based on an audio clip that allegedly showed the petitioner demanding a significant amount of money for the release of a vehicle carrying liquor and 'Doda Post.' The audio clip had gone viral on social media, leading to the government's decision to take action against the petitioner. However, the dismissal was carried out without following the formal procedures outlined in Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that it was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner contended that the government invoked Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 without recording sufficient reasons for not following the prescribed procedures and alleged discrimination, as another government servant involved in the same incident faced a different disciplinary process.
The court's judgment focused on whether it was reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, as required by Rule 19(ii) before dismissing the petitioner. It found that the government had not recorded valid reasons for dispensing with the inquiry and that the dismissal did not comply with the law. The court declared the removal order as invalid and directed the government to pay arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the petitioner's legal representatives.
ISSUES RAISED:-
The issues involved in this case include:
1. Whether the dismissal of the government servant based on an audio clip without a formal inquiry was legally justified.
2. Whether the government's failure to record adequate reasons for dispensing with the inquiry was in compliance with Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
3. Whether there was discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner compared to another government servant involved in the same incident, who faced a different disciplinary process.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER:-
The arguments advanced by the petitioner in this case included:
1. The dismissal was carried out without following the formal procedures outlined in Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
2. The government invoked Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 without recording sufficient reasons for not following the prescribed procedures, as required by law.
3. The petitioner alleged discrimination, as another government servant involved in the same incident faced a different disciplinary process, i.e., suspension and a domestic inquiry.
4. The petitioner contended that the government had not adequately verified the authenticity of the audio clip used as evidence, and it could have been tampered with or altered.
5. The petitioner argued that the government's decision to dismiss without a formal inquiry was arbitrary and illegal, and the principles of natural justice were not followed.
Overall, the petitioner challenged the dismissal on the grounds of procedural irregularity, lack of sufficient reasons for dispensing with the inquiry, and alleged discrimination.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS:-
The arguments advanced by the respondents in this case included:
1. The petitioner was found demanding a significant amount of money for the release of a vehicle carrying liquor and 'Doda Post' during an incident that was recorded in an audio clip and had gone viral on social media.
2. The voice of the petitioner in the audio clip was recognized and verified by three police officials, namely Kailash Kumar, Bajrang Singh, and Om Prakash.
3. The respondents contended that the petitioner's dismissal was in compliance with Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, as it was not reasonably practicable to hold a formal inquiry due to the viral nature of the incident and the clear evidence in the audio clip.
4. The respondents argued that the dismissal was justified as the incident had tarnished the image of the entire Police Department in the state.
5. The government asserted that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of another government servant, Prasann Kathath, as no voice of Prasann Kathath was recorded in the incident.
Overall, the respondents defended the dismissal by claiming that it was based on the clear evidence in the audio clip and was carried out in compliance with Rule 19(ii) due to the impracticability of holding a formal inquiry.
ANALYSIS MADE BY THE COURT:-
The court made several key observations in this case:
1. The court emphasized that when invoking Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, it is essential for the authority to record its satisfaction in writing and provide valid reasons for dispensing with a disciplinary inquiry. The court stated that the underlying presumption in Rule 19 is that dismissal or removal from service should not be taken lightly and should follow due process.
2. The court noted that the requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with an inquiry is non-negotiable and must strictly conform to the constitutional mandate.
3. The court highlighted the importance of determining the authenticity of evidence, in this case, the audio clip, before taking any action. It noted that if there were doubts about the genuineness of a document or evidence, it would have no evidentiary value unless corroborated.
4. The court found that the government had used different standards in dealing with two similarly situated individuals involved in the same incident, leading to discrimination. The court stressed the need for parity in the treatment of co-delinquents and noted that punishment should not be disproportionate.
5. The court ultimately concluded that the government had not recorded valid reasons for dispensing with the inquiry, and the dismissal of the petitioner did not comply with the law. Therefore, the removal order was declared invalid, and the government was directed to pay arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the petitioner's legal representatives.
These observations highlight the court's commitment to upholding principles of natural justice, the importance of recording reasons, and ensuring fairness and equality in the disciplinary process.
JUDGMENT:-
The judgment in this case is as follows:
"The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 is quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has passed away during the pendency of this petition, no further direction for reinstatement or inquiry can be given. The removal order of the petitioner is declared invalid, and the petitioner is deemed to have died in harness. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of the salary of the petitioner from the date of his termination until his death and provide all terminal benefits to his legal representatives. This should be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Each party shall bear its own costs."
In summary, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned removal order, and directed the government to provide arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the legal representatives of the petitioner, who had passed away during the proceedings.
CONCLUSION:-
In conclusion, the court's judgment in this case underscores the importance of adhering to due process and principles of natural justice when invoking disciplinary actions against government employees. The court emphasized the necessity of recording valid reasons when dispensing with a disciplinary inquiry and ensuring parity in the treatment of co-delinquents. The petitioner's removal order was declared invalid, and the government was directed to provide arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the petitioner's legal representatives. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of fairness and equality in administrative actions, even in cases where the petitioner has passed away during the legal proceedings.
