HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6808/2021
Prithvi Raj Meena S/o Shri Ram Karan Meena, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Flat No. C-501, South Court Apartment, Akshya Patra
Mandir Ke Pass, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.
3. Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Government Of Rajasthan,
Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 02/07/2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been vigilant in pursuing the matter of filing SLP but it was the fault of concerned Advocate on Record in not submitting the SLP within time. It is also submitted that even the counsel did not appear on the day when the case was listed which resulted in dismissal of the SLP and the petitioner cannot be punished for the delinquency of the Advocate on Record.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had been appointed much later in point of time after the period of filing of SLP had already been over and therefore, he should not have been punished.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2021 at 09:35:37 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-6808/2021]
3. I have considered the submissions.
4. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was for not having pursued with the Advocate on Record for getting SLP filed expeditiously. The disciplinary authority further having perused the reply of the petitioner has although reached to the conclusion that there is a fault of the Advocate on Record, and at the same time, the delinquency on the part of the petitioner has also been established to the extent of having not pursued the matter with the Advocate on Record and on the basis of punishment of censure having been awarded to the petitioner. Admittedly, there has been delay in filing of SLP which resulted in dismissal of the SLP.
The scope of interference in departmental enquiries relating to the charge-sheet and the punishment is limited to the extent whether the concerned delinquent has been given fair and proper opportunity of being heard. This Court would not re-examine the evidence and substitute its opinion on the evidence which has come on record that is to say that the Court would not act as an appellate authority. In the case of Union of India & Ors. versus P. Gunasekaran : (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Supreme Court has laid down the criteria and conditions where this Court may interfere and what conditions the Court may not interfere in departmental enquiries. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as under:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also (Downloaded on 02/07/2021 at 09:35:37 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-6808/2021] 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 Articles 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 Articles 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;(Downloaded on 02/07/2021 at 09:35:37 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-6808/2021]
(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."
5. The said judgment has been further approved by three Judges Bench in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. versus Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507.
6. Thus, in view of above, the submission of the petitioner is essentially that asking this Court to re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done nor its effect can be corrected.
7. Keeping in view above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAURABH YADAV /670/46 (Downloaded on 02/07/2021 at 09:35:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)