Rajasthan High Court quashed a penalty order imposed against a government employee–where one annual increment of his was withheld, after he inadvertently failed to invite an MLA to an inauguration function. 

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit took into account the fact that even though the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had resulted in the decision of dropping the proceedings against him, the penalty was imposed merely based on recommendations of the Minister of the Local Self Department.

The Court observed that the concerned Minister had no authority to pass the challenged order of imposing penalty on the petitioner and thus the penalty order which was based on such recommendation was not justified.

“It is evident from the office notice 17.07.2020 that after considering the reply/explanation of the petitioner, the respondents were of the view that it was not intentional mistake of the petitioner in not inviting the local MLA. However, in spite of the recommendation for dropping the proceedings, the impugned penalty order was passed only on the basis of the recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister concerned who has no authority for the same. 

The respondent authority has passed the impugned order ignoring the fact that after completion of departmental enquiry, the entire proceedings were proposed to be dropped by the respondents. Furthermore, looking to the service record of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer-II. Merely, on the basis of the recommendations of the Hon'ble Minister, the penalty order issued against the petitioner, cannot be held justified.”

For context, the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer with the Municipal Board, of Shahpura, Bhilwara, when the inauguration ceremony of “Modern Toilets” had to be conducted. For this inauguration, the local MLA of Shahpura was invited by the Municipal Board, whose acceptance was also received.

However, owing to an inadvertent mistake and miscommunication on part of the petitioner which was not intentional, the MLA could not attend the ceremony. The MLA filed a complaint before the Minister, that led to initiation of a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The proceedings concluded with the petitioner not being found guilty and with the decision to drop the proceedings. However, despite the thorough enquiry, the matter was referred to the Minister, who made a remark to impose the challenged penalty against the petitioner, and based on such recommendation, the petitioner was penalized. This was challenged before the Court.

The petitioner argued that when the departmental enquiry was over and he was not found guilty, the Minister had no role to play in the matter when specific Departmental Enquiry has been conducted and the respondents authorities found the petitioner not guilty of the charge and proposed to drop the proceedings against him. However, on the basis of the remark made by the Minister, the penalty order was passed.

In this background, the penalty order was set aside, and the State was directed to grant due benefits to the petitioner within 6 weeks.

Title: Pintu Lal Jat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 354

Click Here To Read/Download Order