BENCH AT JAIPUR v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel (A-3), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Jagannath Prasad Jat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 28/08/2025 Order

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. The appellant by way of this appeal assails the judgment and order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:34349-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-854/2025]

3. The writ petitioner/appellant had been served with a charge- sheet along with other delinquent employees and a joint enquiry in terms of Rule 18 of CCA Rules was conducted and enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 04.08.1999 where the enquiry officer did not find charges proved as against the appellant. The disciplinary authority has not accepted the enquiry report and served the disagreement note on 01.05.2000 mentioning therein reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report. The writ petitioner/appellant was asked to submit his reply to the disagreement note. The writ petitioner-appellant submitted his reply, however, after considering the reply and the documents which were on record, the disciplinary authority reached to the conclusion charges leveled against the writ petitioner/appellant were amply proved and passed a composite punishment order stopping two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide impugned order dated 27.03.2002 similar punishment orders were passed with regard to co-delinquents while one of them was exonerated.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason to disagree with the findings of the enquiry report. Learned counsel also submits that reliance by the disciplinary authority on documents relating to alleged evasion of tax by transportation of goods through side roads resulting in loss of revenue is wholly mis-conceived. There was no documentary proof available to prove the charges of writ petitioner-appellant being guilty of allowing evasion of tax. Learned counsel further submits that once the inspectors have been exonerated there was no occasion to hold the writ petitioner/appellant who were working as [2025:RJ-JP:34349-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-854/2025] LDCs guilty. He also submits that the documents which were relied upon were xerox copy of the original and could not be considered as evidence.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions.

6. We find that the provisions of CCA rules 1958 have been duly followed while conducting the departmental enquiry and principles of natural justice have been followed. The writ petitioner-appellant has been given due opportunity to defend himself during the course of enquiry as well as before the disciplinary authority. The disagreement notice clearly reflects the points of disagreement with the enquiry report.

7. In view thereto, we find that the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant is not proved from the record, on the ground that their contentions and defence were not considered.

8. Learned Single Judge has relied upon judgments passed in State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh:- (2022) 6 SCC 563 and State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy:- (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1064 .

9. We have no hesitation in concurring with the view advanced by learned Single Judge, we only add that in Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali:- (2017) 4 SCC 507 a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope available for interference in judicial reviews relating to departmental enquiry and confirmed the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran:- (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Apex Court held as under:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an [2025:RJ-JP:34349-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-854/2025] appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a). the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

10. From the above principles, it is apparent that this Court would only interfere in the circumstances as mentioned in Clause (a) to (I) in para 12, however, the High Court would not re-appreciate the evidence or correct the error of fact, however it may appear to be.

11. The submission with regard to documents being xerox copies, also has no force as their entire departmental enquiry are [2025:RJ-JP:34349-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-854/2025] based on preponderance of the evidence and has not prove the principles laid down in law of evidence and would, therefore, not have strict application to the departmental enquiry proceedings. On that count no interference, therefore, can be said to be made out and the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

12. Accordingly, the present special appeal writ is dismissed.

13. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/28