Employee's Reinstatement On Court Order Doesn't Bar Disciplinary Enquiry For Past Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that reinstatement of a government employee after consideration of his/her representation based on a court order was not equivalent to condonation of the misconduct, and it did not take away the State's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee for the same period. The bench of Justice Anand Sharma clarified that unless a specific order...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that reinstatement of a government employee after consideration of his/her representation based on a court order was not equivalent to condonation of the misconduct, and it did not take away the State's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee for the same period.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma clarified that unless a specific order was passed that condoned the misconduct, reinstatement by itself, following judicial order, did not preclude the State from conducting disciplinary enquiry.
The petitioner was appointed on probation as a Health Officer when her services were terminated in 1994 due to willful absence. This was challenged before the Court and the Court directed the State to consider the representation of the petitioner. Based on this representation, the petitioner was reinstated by the State.
However, in 1998, charge sheet was issued by the State to the petitioner, initiating an enquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, in relation to the allegation of willful absence for the same period for which the services were earlier terminated.
This enquiry culminated in imposition of penalty on the petitioner of withholding of 3 annual grade increments.
This penalty order was challenged before the Court on the ground that it contained same charges for which the petitioner had earlier suffered the rigour of termination, and no charge sheet for the same period could be again issued against the petitioner. Further, it was argued that the penalty was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that in the earlier order, the Court had merely directed the State to consider representation of the petitioner and had not directed condonation of the alleged misconduct.
“Even her reinstatement by the respondents would not mean that she has been absolved of all the misconduct, which were committed by her and mere reinstatement of the petitioner, does not preclude the respondent- Department from conducting any enquiry whatsoever. Thus, the penalty order of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect cannot be challenged by the petitioner only on this ground.”
On the argument of the penalty being excessive, the Court stated that the Supreme Court had time and again reiterated that the quantum of punishment on a delinquent employee was primarily the domain of disciplinary authority, and court shall refrain from interfering unless the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct.
It was further opined that looking at the nature of proven misconduct of the petitioner in light of her duties and responsibilities, it could not be said that the misconduct was trivial and hence, the argument of the penalty being disproportionate was rejected.
“The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience of this Court, nor can it be termed outrageously disproportionate. It is well settled that mere harshness of punishment is not a ground for judicial interference. Unless the penalty is such that no reasonable employer would have imposed it in the given facts, the Court must refrain from substituting its own sense of proportionality.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 19