Police Line, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (Appeal), Home (Group-11) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Dy. Commissioner Police (H.Q.), Police Commissionerate, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishma Soni on behalf of Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Reserved on Pronounced on :: ::

27.05.2025

28.05.2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against order dated 16.10.2015, whereby penalty of 'censure' has been awarded and has also challenged orders dated 28.02.2017 and 07.04.2021, whereby appeal and review petition filed by the petitioner against the penalty order have been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is holding the substantive post of 'Constable' in Police Department. He was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') whereby allegation was levelled [2025:RJ-JP:22335] (2 of 6) [CW-8971/2021] against him that although he was deputed on patrolling duty at Kunda Check Post, Amer, Jaipur, yet during the sudden inspection by Assistant Police Commissioner (Headquarter) North, Jaipur, he was not found at the Check Post.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although he filed reply to the charge-sheet in order to justify his conduct by mentioning that on 11.07.2015, while he was discharging his duties at the Check Post mentioned in the charge-sheet, there was heavy downpour. On account of heavy rain and consequent electricity cut, during the darkness, it was not possible for him to stand at the Check Post and in order to save himself from any possible accident at the National Highway, he was standing at the side of the road and was taking good care of the Check Post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his stand was however not found satisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16.10.2015 has imposed penalty of censure against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the penalty order, appeal was filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, however, the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.02.2017. Thereafter, he approached the Reviewing Authority but could not succeed and the review petition was also rejected vide order dated 07.04.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet were devoid of any truth and despite his presence at the Check Post, in quite arbitrary manner and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, penalty order has been passed by the Disciplinary [2025:RJ-JP:22335] (3 of 6) [CW-8971/2021] Authority. The Appellate Authority has also not properly considered the grounds raised by the appellant in appeal and the appeal has been rejected in mechanical manner. The Reviewing Authority has also supported the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority by giving perverse findings while rejecting the Appeal and review petition.

7. On receiving notices of the writ petition, the respondents filed reply to the writ petition in which contents of the writ petition have been categorically denied and it has been stated that the petitioner being a member of disciplined force, was expected to discharge his duties diligently at the Check Post assigned to him and was also required to check the vehicles passing through the Highway. Such arrangement was made in order to maintain law and order in the city, however, on sudden visit of Assistant Police Commissioner (Headquarter) North, Jaipur, the petitioner was not found on duty, it is not that only the petitioner was not absent from duties, during inspection since other employees were also found absent and hence, actions were taken against them. In support of reply, a copy of daily diary (Majmoon Report) has been placed on record, which shows that it was not raining on

11.07.2015 still the petitioner was not found at the Check Post. As such the stand taken by petitioner was factually incorrect.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents states that although the misconduct of the petitioner was quite serious, yet looking to his post, which is lowest in the ladder of Police Department, a lenient view has been taken and penalty of censure has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which requires no interference in the writ petition, more so, when order passed by the Disciplinary [2025:RJ-JP:22335] (4 of 6) [CW-8971/2021] Authority has already been scrutinized by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very very limited and writ Court while examining the penalty order can simply confine itself to the decision making process and cannot re-appreciate the facts. As per learned counsel for the respondents, while imposing penalty against the petitioner, the respondents have duly followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and due opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order, therefore, the writ petition does not call for any interference of this Court.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. I find that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the penalty order has taken into consideration the defence put- forward by the petitioner, however, the same was not found in consonance with the official record. In daily diary (Majmoon Report), the entire incident has been recorded and on the basis of record, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner was not present at the place of his duty, where he was expected to check the vehicle while remaining present at the Check Post.

12. Petitioner has not also alleged any malafides against any of the authorities and has also failed to point out any manifest or patent procedural defect or illegality in penalty order. [2025:RJ-JP:22335] (5 of 6) [CW-8971/2021]

13. I have also examined the appellate order as well as the order passed on review petition. Both the orders are speaking orders where the grounds raised by the petitioner have been duly considered and have been found not tenable in the eye of law.

14. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.29358/2018), decided on 07.05.2024. I have examined the same and have found that the facts of the aforesaid case were altogether different and the question for consideration was that as to whether penalty of censure can be taken into consideration in order to deprive an employee from benefit of promotion or financial up-gradation. Such point is not at all involved in the instant writ petition. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not at all applicable in the instant case.

15. It would be relevant to refer that in the case of State of UP And Anr. Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha and Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, being not a Court of appeal and is bound to remain within the narrow confine of examining decision making process.

16. Similarly, in the case of Central Industrial Security Forces and Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR 2017 SC 200 principles for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter of Disciplinary Enquiry have been laid down and the Apex Court has held that a writ Court cannot interfere with the conclusions in enquiry, nor can it re-appreciate the evidence, nor can it correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be. [2025:RJ-JP:22335] (6 of 6) [CW-8971/2021]

17. In the case of Adminstrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "14. The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the Court or a Tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts."

18. In the light of above principles of laws, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

19. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. PCG/198 (ANAND SHARMA),J