Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order penalising a Chemistry teacher with a penalty of censure for his student’s poor result in Class 12th Board examination, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed the impugned orders as there exist no specific finding to establish that petitioner’s negligence or misconduct directly caused the students’ poor performance.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge against him was that the Class 12th Board examination results in Chemistry were below the standard set by the Education Department. Subsequently, the petitioner was punished with a penalty of censure vide orders dated 18-09-2013 and 07-01-2015.
Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and contended that there was no specific act of misconduct, negligence, or omission on his part that led to the lower-than-standard results. The petitioner argued that multiple factors influence student performance and punishing him solely based on the results is unjust. The petitioner relied on Shailendra Kumar Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 1886 and Dharamveer v. State of Rajasthan,1 where the Court quashed the similar actions against teachers.
However, the respondents contended that the petitioner’s alleged negligence and slackness resulted in the Class 12th Chemistry results falling below the expected standard. It was contended that the disciplinary action is justified and the same did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness.
The Court found that the penalty of censure was imposed solely based on student performance without establishing any “act of commission or omission” by the petitioner. It was noted that the impugned orders were “non-speaking and unreasoned,” failing to explain how the petitioner’s conduct led to the below-standard results. The Court applied the precedent set in Dharamveer (Supra) to this case, where it was held that an employee cannot be punished unless a specific act of misconduct is proved.
The Court held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law, quashed the impugned orders dated 18-09-2013 and 07-01-2015 and set aside the penalty of censure.
[Rajesh Kumar Nischal v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 806, Decided on 26-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Ashok Bansal, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC, Counsel for the Respondents
1. 2005(5) RDD 1219 (Raj.)
