Rajender Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad, aged v. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Deputy Secretary, Ka-3/inquiries, Department Of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9946/2006

Dinesh Kumar Lohia S/o Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 42 years, R/o in front of Ajad Tailor, Ajad Nagar, Bhilwara. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Deputy Secretary, (Ka-3 inquiries), Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma with Mr. Aayush Bansal for Mr. Ashok Bansal : Mr. Prakhar Jain with Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (2 of 5) [CW-9945/2006]

1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have arisen out of penalty order dated 27.08.2003 and order passed in review dated

26.10.2005. Hence, both the cases were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9945/2006 was holding the post of Pharmacist (Store) and petitioner in S.B. C.W.P. No. 9946/2006 was posted as Junior Account in the officer of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara. One chargesheet dated 27.10.1997 containing as many as 9 charges was served upon the petitioner and joint enquiry pursuant to aforesaid chargesheet was initiated. The petitioners filed reply to the chargesheet denying all the charges. Thereafter, joint enquiry was conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries IInd, who submitted an enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. Copy of enquiry report was also served upon the delinquent petitioners and opportunity to represent against the enquiry report was also given to them. They also availed opportunity and filed representation against the findings of enquiry officer. Thereafter, common punishment order dated

27.08.2003 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioners in both the cases have been penalized with a penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect.

3. Feeling aggrieved by penalty order, the petitioners preferred review petition under Rule 34 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. However, the review petition also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer with [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (3 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] prejudiced mind and the stand taken by the petitioners was totally ignored. It was submitted by both the counsels that petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged purchase transaction, in respect of which chargesheet was issued. In fact, petitioner No.1 was on leave on 29.03.1995 and the petitioner in S.B.CWP No. 9944/2006 rather advised the respondents to cancel the purchase order. Ignoring such significant facts, the enquiry officer, in quite mechanical manner has held that the charges have been partially proved against the petitioners. The petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 9946/2006 has been found guilty in respect of charge No.1, whereas petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 9945/2006 has been held guilty in respect of charge No.2.

5. It has also been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted on the dotted lines drawn by the Disciplinary Authority and has passed the penalty order without considering the defence put forward by the petitioners.

6. The Reviewing Authority has also not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the mater of disciplinary enquiry is very limited. Interference can be made only where the delinquent was not granted proper opportunity of hearing or there was any material flaw in the procedure conducted by the enquiry officer or by disciplinary authority. Even question of quantum of punishment [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (4 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] cannot be appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the instant case, both the petitioners have been afforded complete opportunity to explain their stand and to defend the charges. Enquiry officer has granted opportunity of placing evidence on record as well as to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management. The enquiry officer has recorded its finding after meticulous examination of the evidence and documents. Copy of enquiry report was duly provided to the petitioner and the representation submitted by the petitioners against the report of enquiry officer has also been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. As the charges were partially proved against the petitioners, therefore, a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority and penalty of one grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. The Reviewing Authority while exercising power under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 has also examined the record and found no infirmity in the penalty order. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prayed for rejecting the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr. reported in 2009 (8) SCC 310 and Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR 2017 SC 200 on the issue of the scope of the writ petition in disciplinary matters.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and examined the record. It is a settled proposition of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (5 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority against the penalty order, nor can it make any reappraisal of the evidences on record. The scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examine validity of procedure adopted by the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the process followed by the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they have not been afforded complete opportunity to defend the charges in the chargesheet, nor have they come out with a case that the Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order, nor have they pointed out anything to show that penalty awarded to the petitioners was shockingly disproportionate.

10. Under the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no illegality in the impugned punishment awarded to the petitioner hence, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. NEERU/15-16 (ANAND SHARMA),J

Dinesh Kumar Lohia S/o Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 42 years, R/o in front of Ajad Tailor, Ajad Nagar, Bhilwara. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Deputy Secretary, (Ka-3 inquiries), Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma with Mr. Aayush Bansal for Mr. Ashok Bansal : Mr. Prakhar Jain with Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (2 of 5) [CW-9945/2006]

1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have arisen out of penalty order dated 27.08.2003 and order passed in review dated

26.10.2005. Hence, both the cases were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9945/2006 was holding the post of Pharmacist (Store) and petitioner in S.B. C.W.P. No. 9946/2006 was posted as Junior Account in the officer of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara. One chargesheet dated 27.10.1997 containing as many as 9 charges was served upon the petitioner and joint enquiry pursuant to aforesaid chargesheet was initiated. The petitioners filed reply to the chargesheet denying all the charges. Thereafter, joint enquiry was conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries IInd, who submitted an enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. Copy of enquiry report was also served upon the delinquent petitioners and opportunity to represent against the enquiry report was also given to them. They also availed opportunity and filed representation against the findings of enquiry officer. Thereafter, common punishment order dated

27.08.2003 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioners in both the cases have been penalized with a penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect.

3. Feeling aggrieved by penalty order, the petitioners preferred review petition under Rule 34 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. However, the review petition also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer with [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (3 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] prejudiced mind and the stand taken by the petitioners was totally ignored. It was submitted by both the counsels that petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged purchase transaction, in respect of which chargesheet was issued. In fact, petitioner No.1 was on leave on 29.03.1995 and the petitioner in S.B.CWP No. 9944/2006 rather advised the respondents to cancel the purchase order. Ignoring such significant facts, the enquiry officer, in quite mechanical manner has held that the charges have been partially proved against the petitioners. The petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 9946/2006 has been found guilty in respect of charge No.1, whereas petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 9945/2006 has been held guilty in respect of charge No.2.

5. It has also been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted on the dotted lines drawn by the Disciplinary Authority and has passed the penalty order without considering the defence put forward by the petitioners.

6. The Reviewing Authority has also not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the mater of disciplinary enquiry is very limited. Interference can be made only where the delinquent was not granted proper opportunity of hearing or there was any material flaw in the procedure conducted by the enquiry officer or by disciplinary authority. Even question of quantum of punishment [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (4 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] cannot be appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the instant case, both the petitioners have been afforded complete opportunity to explain their stand and to defend the charges. Enquiry officer has granted opportunity of placing evidence on record as well as to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management. The enquiry officer has recorded its finding after meticulous examination of the evidence and documents. Copy of enquiry report was duly provided to the petitioner and the representation submitted by the petitioners against the report of enquiry officer has also been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. As the charges were partially proved against the petitioners, therefore, a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority and penalty of one grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. The Reviewing Authority while exercising power under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 has also examined the record and found no infirmity in the penalty order. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prayed for rejecting the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr. reported in 2009 (8) SCC 310 and Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR 2017 SC 200 on the issue of the scope of the writ petition in disciplinary matters.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and examined the record. It is a settled proposition of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the [2025:RJ-JP:32383] (5 of 5) [CW-9945/2006] Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority against the penalty order, nor can it make any reappraisal of the evidences on record. The scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examine validity of procedure adopted by the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the process followed by the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they have not been afforded complete opportunity to defend the charges in the chargesheet, nor have they come out with a case that the Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order, nor have they pointed out anything to show that penalty awarded to the petitioners was shockingly disproportionate.

10. Under the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no illegality in the impugned punishment awarded to the petitioner hence, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. NEERU/15-16 (ANAND SHARMA),J