In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8142 OF 2023-SC- Rule 9 (1)(a)(iii) of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules mandates that no disciplinary proceeding or action must be pending or contemplated against candidate on date of consideration: SC allows State’s Appeal challenging appointment order
Justices M.M. Sundresh & Aravind Kumar[14-12-2023]

Read Order: State of Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Singh and Another

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, December 20, 2023: While referring to Rule 9 of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 which deals with the selection of candidates for inclusion of their names in Register A-1, the Supreme Court has clarified that for the purpose of Rule 9(1)(a)(iii), the relevant date for determining if there was any disciplinary action contemplated or pending against a candidate is the date of consideration, which is the date on which the Committee had recommended names to the Commission under Rule 9(2).

The issue before the Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Arvind Kumar related to the recruitment and appointment to the posts in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) (Service). The process of recruitment to the posts in the Service are governed by Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008.

The factual background of this case was such that Dinesh Singh (Respondent no. 1) was one among several candidates, who was seeking appointment to the post in the Service. He was appointed in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management (Appellant no. 3) on 12.08.2008 as a Naib Tehsildar, and at the time of filing the original Writ Petition, was serving in the post of Tehsildar. The Department found Dinesh Singh, among several others, to be ineligible for selection to Register A-1 on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility condition set out in sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 9. The condition under this rule is that the candidate should not be facing disciplinary proceedings and no action should be contemplated against him.

According to the Department, Dinesh Singh, though was not facing any disciplinary proceedings, there was action being contemplated against him as on date of consideration, which resulted in him being declared ineligible for selection. When the same was challenged before the High Court, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by Dinesh Singh and other similarly situated persons. On appeal, the High Court had set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the State to take steps to consider the case of Dinesh Singh for appointment from Register A-1.

The Division Bench referred to State of M.P. v. Bani Singh wherein it has been observed that mere pendency or contemplated initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a candidate must be considered to have absolutely no impact upon his right to be considered.

On the issue of determination of the cut-off date qua the eligibility condition of pending disciplinary proceedings, the Court observed that the Single Judge was correct in concluding that 1.11.2018 was meant only for the purpose of determining the age- related eligibility as provided for in Rule 9(1)(a)(ii).

Noting the fact that the cut-off date (1.11.2018) was relevant only to decide the question of how much of the ACR and experience had to be considered and till what period, the Bench further noted that such date was never meant to operate as the date against which all the eligibility criteria had to be measured against.

It was further clarified that Rule 9 (1)(a)(iii) mandates that not only there must be no pending disciplinary proceeding but there must also not be any action contemplated against the candidate as on date of consideration. Reference was also made to Union of India Vs. KV Janakiramanin order to reiterate that a disciplinary proceeding is said to be pending when a formal charge-sheet is issued to the employee.

The reason for declaring the Respondent (Dinesh Singh) ineligible for selection as per Rule 9 was on the ground that decision has been taken on file to charge sheet him under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. It was also noted that in the Counter-Affidavit submitted on his behalf, there was an implicit admission that a decision to initiate disciplinary action against him (Dinesh Singh) was taken on 09.01.2019. After surveying the relevant authorities dealing with the meaning of contemplation, the Bench found that there was a contemplation to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per law.

The main allegation against Respondent No.1 was that he was directed to act as Duty Magistrate during the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 and he remained absent from this duty and as such he was negligent in performing his official duties. The Deputy Commissioner recommended that formal inquiry be initiated against the Respondent. In view of this communication, a decision was taken to charge-sheet Respondent No. 1.

However, the entire proceedings came to be dropped on 11.12.2019. The Bench was of the view that as on the date of consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the writ petitioner Dinesh Singh, and therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name in Register A-1.

Thus, the appeal was allowed.