Rajasthan v. Government, Jaipur

: Mr. Vishal Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against order dated 24.01.1996 passed by the Director Local Bodies, whereby penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He is also aggrieved by order dated 20.05.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed.

2. It is stated that while petitioner was working as Executive Officer (Revenue Officer) in Municipal Board Todabhim (annex.-1), after conducting preliminary inquiry, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing as many as four charges and [2025:RJ-JP:33417] (2 of 5) [CW-9070/2002] thereafter, the petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet categorically denying all the charges, however, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet hence, they appointed Inquiry Officer for conducting inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report however, such report was found incomplete therefore, re-inquiry was conduced by the Local Self Government and copy of inquiry report was given to the petitioner against which although, the petitioner filed his representation pointing out defects and flaws in the inquiry proceedings yet, in quite mechanical manner and without appreciating the representation filed by the petitioner as well as the apparent variance made by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the penalty order dated 24.01.1996. The petitioner also filed appeal against the penalty order yet, the Appellate Authority without considering the grounds raised in memo of appeal, rejected the appeal by the non-speaking order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner contained altogether four different allegations having no connection with each other. Therefore, such different charges could not have been enquired into in one inquiry. Learned counsel further submits that although he submitted application for obtaining relevant documents which for inspection thereof yet, neither such documents were provided to him nor the relevant documents were allowed to be inspected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although one of the charge-sheet was relating to opening fire through firearm yet, no FIR whatsoever was registered in respect [2025:RJ-JP:33417] (3 of 5) [CW-9070/2002] of the incident. As such charge itself was misconceived and was in respect of non-existing incident. It has been submitted that allegation with regard to recovery of revenue between 1982-83 and 1989-90 levelled against the petitioner is against the record and learned counsel for the petitioner indicates from Annex.-11 filed by the petitioner that in fact the income during those orders was more than the earlier orders. However, such point was not at all appreciated either by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority or even by the Appellate Authority.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defended the impugned orders and stated that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters is very limited. Any interference can be made only in those cases where the order has been passed by the incompetent authority; or there is material and apparent flaw in the inquiry proceedings or the penalty imposed against the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed to point out any such point in his entire memo of writ petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

7. The first statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the different allegations cannot be included in one charge-sheet is totally misconceived for the reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show any rule which prohibits inclusion of two or more different incidents in a charge-sheet. As there was no prohibitory rule, therefore, the [2025:RJ-JP:33417] (4 of 5) [CW-9070/2002] respondents have not faulted in including the different charges in one inquiry. Even otherwise, including more than one charge- sheet against the same employee and in respect of same department would be convenient for the delinquent as well as management.

8. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite his application, relevant documents were neither supplied to him nor were allowed to be inspected. On perusal of representation filed by the petitioner against the inquiry report or even the memo of appeal, this Court finds that no such request was ever made by the petitioner, nor such point was raised by the petitioner in his representation against the inquiry report or even his memo of appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no FIR relating to the incident with regard to opening FIR was lodged therefore, presumption cannot be drawn either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to such incident. In this regard, the Inquiry Officer has also conducted inquiry on the basis of witnesses present at the time of incident and material on record. Such factual finding cannot be challenged by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submitted that while the petitioner was working as Executive Officer, the concerned municipality has earned more revenue. In this regard also it is sufficient to observe that this cannot be a ground to interfere in the penalty order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner.

10. It is a settled preposition of law that Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate [2025:RJ-JP:33417] (5 of 5) [CW-9070/2002] Authority, and factual findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered by the Writ Court.

11. Hence, in view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. DIVYA /44 (ANAND SHARMA),J