Churu, Rajasthan v. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

: Mr. Mohit Balwada with Mr. Aditya Raj Mr. Sunil Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement : :

10.09.2025

18.09.2025

1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 23.08.2001, whereby penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of order dated

22.11.2001, whereby review petition filed by the petitioner against penalty order dated 23.08.2001 has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner has come out with the case that he was holding the post of Senior Specialist (Surgery) and was [2025:RJ-JP:37520] (2 of 6) [CW-259/2002] posted in D.B. General Hospital, Churu, Rajasthan. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.03.1999, containing a charge that he committed negligence in the treatment of patient Guddi in as much as by not following the earlier treatment reports mentioned in the bed head ticket and by ignoring the earlier diagnosis. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet, denying all the charges and contended that he was approached by the other doctors of the hospital, when the patient became serious and was facing toxaemia due to pus in chest. It was contended that the patient remained under treatment of the petitioner for not more than half an hour and collapsed thereafter. Hence, for such incident the petitioner cannot be held guilty. It is also submitted by the petitioner that in relation to said incident although an FIR was registered by the family members of deceased patient under Section 304-A IPC, yet it was against other two doctors namely; Dr. Satyendra Kaushik & Dr. Mohammad Iliyas and not against the petitioner.

3. After receiving the reply, the charge-sheet earlier issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 was converted in the proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioner as well as two other delinquents were heard personally by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter, the petitioner was punished with penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not at all appreciated the fact that at the fag end, when the patient was facing critical situation, as per skill, knowledge and expertise at [2025:RJ-JP:37520] (3 of 6) [CW-259/2002] his command, the petitioner treated the patient diligently and committed no negligence whatsoever, yet merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, penalty of withholding two grade increments has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which was totally unwarranted and has caused stigma over the unblemished career of the petitioner. Such stigmatic order has adversely affected the reputation of the petitioner and immediately he had to take voluntary retirement from the service. It was also submitted that even the review petition filed by the petitioner was not considered properly by the reviewing authority, and the same was dismissed in mechanical manner.

5. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and supported the penalty order. It was submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were of serious nature as he negligently treated the patient Guddi and on account of his negligence the patient untimely died. It was submitted that as per X-ray report, pus was marked in left part of the body of injured patient, however, the petitioner and other two doctors, in negligent manner punctured the other side of the body for allegedly extracting the pus, which made the condition of the patient quite serious resulting ultimately in her death. The petitioner being Senior Specialist in Surgery was expected to carry out his treatment as per established norms of medical practice and in accordance with the earlier diagnosis remarks in bed head ticket, yet he did not follow the same and carried out treatment as per his own whims. The entire record was examined by the Disciplinary Authority and after analyzing the charges, material documents as well as explanation of the reply [2025:RJ-JP:37520] (4 of 6) [CW-259/2002] given by the petitioner, penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner, which is a minor penalty and cannot be said to be disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a matter against minor penalty, the reviewing authority after considering the review application along with record has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of The General Manager (P) Canara Bank Vs. Ganganarasimhaiah, arising out of SLP (C) No.20343/2022 decided on 09.09.2025.

7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is a settled proposition of law that scope of writ petition in a matter of disciplinary inquiry is extremely limited and can be exercised only where the petitioner establishes any case of violation of principles of natural justice, non-compliance of procedure contemplated in the disciplinary Rules or the punishment imposed being disproportionate to the guilt.

9. In the instant case, where after examining the bed head ticket and the line of treatment, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed minor penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any manifest or apparent illegality, any conspicuous flaw in the procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority or anything to show that the penalty [2025:RJ-JP:37520] (5 of 6) [CW-259/2002] imposed upon the petitioner was quite excessive and disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. Hence, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Court does not set as an Appellate Authority and cannot re-appraise the evidence/material on record, there is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition.

10. In the case of The General Manager (P) Canara Bank (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "30. We are at pain to say that the Tribunal as well as the High Court had failed to take into consideration the settled principal of law in respect of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It is well settled that when a Disciplinary Enquiry against a delinquent for alleged misconduct is initiated and in the said Disciplinary Enquiry, he/she is found guilty and subsequently punished, the court before which a challenge is made by the delinquent, is required to examine and determine the following aspects: - (i) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority? (ii) Rule of natural justice has been complied with or not: (iii) The conclusions arrived by the Disciplinary Authority are based on rno evidence or the findings are perverse. It is also equally settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in the departmental proceedings and the charge against the delinquent can be proved on preponderance of probabilities.

39. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority had taken into consideration the evidence available on record and had come to the conclusion that the Respondent was found guilty on the charges levelled against him. The Appellate Authority had also revisited the evidence and concurred with the Disciplinary Authority. After careful scrutiny of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it cannot be said that the said orders were based on no evidence or are perverse in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. The Tribunal had acted as an Appellate Authority and despite concluding that it is highly possible that the [2025:RJ-JP:37520] (6 of 6) [CW-259/2002] irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by the manager at the insistence of the Respondent, and he was the direct beneficiary of the irregular loan sanction. had illegally interfered with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal had also erred in observing that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the Respondent is harsh and disproportionate as it may result in denial of the retirement too benefit to him."

11. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as in view of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, I find no ground to interfere in the writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /3