[2026:RJ-JP:3538] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15459/2011 Man Singh S/o Shri Santosh Lal Aged about 60 years, R/o E-41, Ranjeet Nagar, Baratpur. 1/1. Smt. Kusum W/o Late Shri Man Singh, Aged About 69 Years, R/o E-41, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur. 3. The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur Through Its Managing Director. 4. Smt. Meena Singh W/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Chairman, The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur R/o Ekta Vihar Colony Bharatpur. 5. Shri Madhu Sudan Sharma S/o Shri N.D. Sharma, Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Working As Managing Director, The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. 6. Shri Mukesh Kumar, Manager Development, The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4969/2011 Man Singh S/o Shri Santosh Lal Aged about 60 years, R/o E-41, Ranjeet Nagar, Baratpur. 1/1. Smt. Kusum W/o Late Shri Man Singh, Aged About 69 Years, R/o E-41, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur. 3. The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (2 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] Bharatpur Through Its Managing Director. 4. Smt. Meena Singh W/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Chairman, The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/01/2026 1. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4969/2011, an application has been moved for taking legal representative of the petitioner on record as during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired however, the cause of action still survives. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar application has already been allowed in connected writ petition No. 15459/2011. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. The legal representative of the petitioner are taken on record in Writ Petition No. 4969/2011 as well. Amended cause titled filed with the application is taken on record. 4. With the consent of learned counsel both the parties, the matters were heard finally. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to assail legality and validity of order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Chairman of Appeal Committee of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur as well as consequential order dated 30.07.2011 passed [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (3 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] by Managing Director of the Bank whereby, penalty of dismissal from the service has been inflicted upon the petitioner. He has further prayed for granting all consequential benefits including the benefits relating to suspension period and other fixational benefits arising out of his exoneration in the earlier disciplinary enquiries. 6. It is stated that the petitioner was holding the post of Bank Assistant. He was served with two charge-sheets bearing number 466 & 467 dated 12.05.2011 for committing financial irregularities. The petitioner defended the charge-sheets and participated in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 26.07.2011. Without furnishing copy of enquiry report of the petitioner, he was called for personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.07.2011. During personal hearing, the petitioner requested to the Disciplinary Authority to make available copy of enquiry report, which was made available to him during the personal hearing however, despite request, no time to make representation against the enquiry report was granted to the petitioner showing urgency in the matter. Thereafter, the enquiry report was examined by the Disciplinary Authority itself, who found that although, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved, yet such enquiry was not conducted properly and on the basis of such enquiry report, no penalty could have been inflicted upon the petitioner and it was not feasible to conduct re- enquiry in this matter therefore, the matter was closed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 28.07.2011. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in quite shocking and surprising manner, an appeal against exoneration [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (4 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] order dated 28.07.2011 preferred by one of the member of society was entertained by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee. Petitioner received notice of appeal in the evening of 29.07.2011. The petitioner appeared before the Appellate Authority and objected to the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority as well as prayed for furnishing copy of appeal and other documents, however, neither opportunity was granted nor copy of appeal was supplied to the petitioner and without there being any authority of law and without following the due procedure, the Chairman of Appeal Committee of respondent-Bank passed order dated 30.07.2011, whereby, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. Consequently, one order dated 30.07.2011 was passed by the Managing Director in compliance of decision of Appellate Authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Disciplinary Authority himself exonerated the petitioner holding the enquiry to be defective and closed the matter, there was no occasion whatsoever for the Appellate Authority to pass impugned order dated 30.07.2011 on an appeal of a person, who was stranger to the proceedings and had no right to file any appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority in utter disregard of the procedure contemplated under the Rules, entertained the appeal and same was also decided in quite haste manner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend and thus, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed to the petitioner is totally malicious, arbitrary and [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (5 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] illegal therefore, he prayed for quashing such orders and to direct the respondents to release all the terminal benefits including the benefits of pay fixation order dated 30.05.2009. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since, there were allegations of committing serious misconduct against the petitioner therefore, enquiry was initiated by the petitioner as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 however, ignoring the fact that the Enquiry Officer after enquiry had recorded his finding that the charges were proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority did not take any disciplinary action against the petitioner and vide order dated 28.07.2011, the enquiry proceedings were closed alleging the enquiry report to be defective and not proper for passing any order of penalty. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this irregularity committed by the Disciplinary Authority was brought to the notice of Appellate Authority by member of cooperative society by way of filing a representation in the form of appeal and as it was a matter involving public money therefore, in public interest, the appeal was entertained and after examining the enquiry report, the Appellate Authority has rightly passed the order of dismissing the petitioner from service. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It has not been disputed before this Court that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rules, 1958. Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 16 provides for [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (6 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] detailed procedure for conducting enquiry and for passing necessary orders after the enquiry report. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, copy of enquiry report was not given to the petitioner till, it was furnished to him during personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority himself did not agree with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and found the enquiry to be defective. Under such circumstances, while recording his satisfaction that no disciplinary action could have been taken against the petitioner on the basis of such defective and faulty enquiry, the disciplinary proceedings were closed without imposing any penalty whatsoever upon the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has utterly failed to point out any provision whatsoever under the (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 for entertaining appeal against exoneration order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred by a stranger to the proceedings, who might be a member of the cooperative society. 14. Provision of appeal has been given under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, which reads as under: 23. Appeals against order imposing penalties. – (1) A member of the Subordinate Service, Ministerial Service or Class IV Service may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in rule 14 to the Authority as shown below :– (i) Subordinate Service – Government in Administrative Department. (ii) Ministerial Service – Government in Administrative Department. (iii) Class IV Service – Head of Department. The Government may, however, by a general or special order specify any other authority to whom the [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (7 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] appeal may be preferred against the order imposing any of the penalties under rule 14 of these rules by any of the Disciplinary Authority. Provided that a member of the Ministerial Service or Class IV Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of that Department. Provided further that a member of the Ministerial Service or Class IV Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Embezzlement Enquiry Cases/ Assistant Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as Heads of Offices in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries. Provided that a member of the Subordinate Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the Commissioner for Department Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of that Department. Explanation:– Where Government or the Head of Department has delegated the powers of appointment to a Subordinate Authority, the Head of the Department concerned shall be the Appointing Authority for the purpose of this sub–rule in terms of proviso below rule 2 (a) (iv). (2) A member of the State Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is made by an authority other than the Government may appeal against such order to the Government. Provided that a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Judicial Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 except the penalty of removal or dismissal from service is made by an authority other than the Government may appeal to a Committee consisting of three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court nominated by the Chief Justice. Provided further that member of the State Service against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, under delegated authority is passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (8 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] Commissioner for Department Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiries cases may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of that Department. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub–rule (1) to (3) an appeal against an order in a common proceeding held under rule 18 shall lie to the authority to which the authority functioning as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of that proceeding is immediately subordinate. (5) Where an appeal lies to the Government under this rule the decision there on shall be taken after consultation with the Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary. Explanation:–In this rule the expression "member of a Civil Service" includes a person who has ceased to a member of that Service." 15. Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would make it clear that right to prefer appeal under Rule 23 has been conferred upon the aggrieved delinquent and not to anybody else. Thus, there was no occasion or authority available to the Appellate Authority to entertain the alleged appeal filed by one of the member of cooperative society therefore, order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority on an appeal, which was not a competent appeal under the Rules, is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 16. That apart, the Appellate Authority also showed undue haste in deciding the appeal and even opportunity of due hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. 17. Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 although confers power upon the Appellate Authority to examine the record on his own motion or otherwise, for confirming, modifying or setting-aside the order of penalty or to enhance the penalty. However, such Rule is also not applicable in the present case, where admittedly, the procedure contemplated under the Rule was not followed by the [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (9 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] Appellate Authority therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, Rule 32 also cannot be pressed into service by the respondents. 18. Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 is reproduced as under:- 32.The authority to which appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 lies may, if no appeal has been preferred therefrom, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding held by an authority subordinate to it and after making further investigation, if necessary, revise (any order) passed in such a case and after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary – (a) Confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) Impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such order as it deems fit. Provided that – (1) An order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against enhanced penalty. (2) if the appellate authority propose to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, it shall, subject to the provisions of rule 19, direct such an inquiry to be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) No action under this rule shall be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed." 19. In the case of Mukesh Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Raj. 3027, Coordinate Bench of this Court after interfering Rule 32, has held as under:- "34.The Court finds that Rule 32 of the Rules 1958 gives power to an Appellate Authority to call for and to examine records of the case in a disciplinary proceedings, which is conducted by an authority subordinate to it. Rule further prescribes that after making further investigation, if necessary, order can be revised and passed in a case after consultation with the commission where such [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (10 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] consultation is necessary. The power under Rule 32 can be exercised suo-moto or otherwise. 35.The Revisional Authority once come to know that in a disciplinary proceeding, an order is passed and the facts are brought into notice of the revisional authority, such orders can be considered as to whether the case is required to be dealt with by the revisional authority at its own level or it can further remit the case to the authority who has made the order. 36. A bare perusal of Rule 32 reveals that as per Rule 32 (a) the authority can confirm, modify or set aside the Order. The power to deal with any penalty order against which a revision is filed, the revisional authority under Rule 32 (b) can impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order, which is subject matter of review. 37.In the opinion of the Court, if there is any penalty order which is passed and same is being scrutinized by the revisional authority, the power given under Rule 32 (b) can be exercised in respect of the penalty order. The power given under Rule 32 (a) deals with the situation where the order which is sought to be reviewed can be affirmed, modified or set aside. 38.The Court further finds that under Clause (c) of Rule 32, the Revisional Authority can remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case. There is further power under Clause (d) of Rule 32 to pass orders which are deemed fit by the Revisional Authority. The Court finds that once the power to the Revisional authority is given to call for and examine the records of a case in a disciplinary proceeding, such power can definitely be exercised at any stage of disciplinary proceeding before passing of the final penalty order. 39.There are three safe-guards which are given under Rule 32 of CCA Rules, 1958. The first proviso provides that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against the enhanced penalty. 40.The said proviso is a safe-guard and confers right to delinquent to file a representation, if the order of the Revision Authority is imposing or enhancing the penalty. 41.The Second proviso to Rule 32 further provides that if the Revisional- Appellate Authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties as specified in Clause (iv to vii) of Rule 14 in case where an enquiry under Rule 16 has [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (11 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] not been held, the Revisional Authority can direct to hold an enquiry and thereafter on consideration of proceedings of such enquiry the order can be passed. Proviso (2) to Rule 32 provides second safe-guard to the delinquent employee that if the Revisional Authority directs that any of the major penalty is required to be imposed, proper enquiry is to be conducted and the delinquent has to be given full opportunity to defend his case. 42.The Third proviso to Rule 32 provides a further safe- guard that no action can be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed. The Revision Authority has also to keep in mind that any action under Rule 32 cannot be taken after the period of 6 months from the order which is said to be reviewed. 20. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority has utterly failed to adhere to the mandatory safeguards enshrined in Proviso 1 & 2 to Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, which unequivocally entitle the petitioner to a fair opportunity of hearing prior to any adverse decision in exercise of Rule 32. This procedural infirmity vitiates the Appellate order ab-initio, as no proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He was served with notice of appeal in the evening of 29.07.2011 for hearing scheduled on 30.07.2011 and without even providing copy of memo of appeal and other documents and without even granting sufficient time to represent against proposed action under Rule 32, Appellate Authority proceeded further and imposed harshest penalty of dismissal from service on 30.07.2011 itself, rendering the entire process bereft of natural justice and in defiance of mandatory procedure contemplated under the Rules. Consequently, the impugned order constitutes a glaring misuse of power, patently arbitrary and capricious, warranting its outright quashing in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:3538] (12 of 12) [CW-15459/2011] 21. In view of above, orders dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Chairman of Appeal Committee as well as by the Managing Director of respondent-Bank (Annexures-40 & 41), are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the terminal benefits on account of quashing of aforesaid orders, including the benefits of pay fixation order dated 30.05.2009, which was also not executed on account of undue interference by the Chairman of respondent-Bank. The petitioner is also held entitled for the benefits of remaining salary during the suspension period. 22. In this matter, this Court finds that the petitioner has been deprived of legitimate rights without following the due process of law and on account of whimsical and fanciful attitude of Chairman of respondent-Bank, the benefits which should have been released to the petitioner in the year 2011, have been delayed for the period of 15 years. Thus, the delay is solely attributable to the respondents hence, petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum, which shall be paid to the petitioner along with terminal benefits. 23. Necessary exercise shall be carried out within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 24. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner are accordingly allowed. 25. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 26. Copy of this order be placed in the connected file also. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/35-36