Rajasthan High Court

C B Gupta vs State Of Raj And Ors on 18 February, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1076/2010

C.b. Gupta S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal Gupta, 11/90 Kaveri Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of
       Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     Deputy Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health,
       Group-2, Secretariat, Jaipur
3.     The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Jaipur
4.     Deputy       Secretary,       Department           Of      Personnel   Ka-3/
       Enquiry, Rajasthan, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Jaiman with Mr. Daksha Pareek & Ms. Kavita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr. Harshal Tholia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment

18/02/2021 (ORAL)

1. The petitioner assails the punishment order passed in

disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 16 of the

CCA Rules whereby he has been punished with stopping of one

grade increment with cumulative effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge

levelled against the petitioner was that when he was working as a

Drug Inspector, Banswara, sample of "Beuton Kesh Kala" was sent

by him for testing to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta under

Form 18 treating it as a drug while it was a cosmetic. The report

(2 of 5) [CW-1076/2010]

was received from the FSL on 16.10.2000 under Form 13 treating

it as a cosmetic and a case was directed to be registered against

the concerned manufacturer following the provisions of Sections

23 & 25 of the Act, however, on account of the procedural legality

committed in sending the sample under Form 18 instead of Form

13, the case could not be registered against the concerned

manufacture. The fault having been committed by the petitioner,

the charge was levelled against him. Learned counsel submits that

the petitioner had submitted his reply and pointed out that he had

been transferred on 30.06.1999 and when the report was received

from Calcutta under Form 13, the concerned officer who was

posted in his place ought to have sent a letter to the FSL for

getting the necessary corrections done. However, as necessary

corrections were not made by his successor, the case could not be

registered. It was further submitted that it was the duty of his

successor to have further filed the case before the concerned

court and the plea could have been taken of the mistake before

the court also.

3. Learned counsel submits that there cannot be said to be

intention or negligent fault on the part of the petitioner, however,

the inquiry officer has proceeded to conduct an inquiry in such a

manner so as to indict the petitioner one way or the other.

Learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority has

not bothered to examine the case of the petitioner in his correct

perspective and merely by sending the sample under Form 18, the

petitioner cannot be indicted of the charge in not registering of the

case against the concerned manufacturer especially when there

was a FSL report received holding that the sample was not in

accordance with the standard measures. Learned counsel further

(3 of 5) [CW-1076/2010]

submits that in the inquiry the successor was made as one of the

witnesses and the same also vitiates the inquiry against the

petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has filed a

review petition and has placed on record the note-sheets relating

to the review petition to point out that the authorities of the State

Governments had also observed that the petitioner cannot be said

to have committed the said mistake and to be of such a nature

which would be sufficient to award punishment. However, the legal

advisers opinion was not accepted and wrongfully the review

petition has been dismissed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the

orders and submitted that the petitioner was guilty of sending the

sample under wrong format which caused to the root of the entire

case and even if the case had been registered, the same would

have been rejected on the ground of procedural discrepancies. The

petitioner has been only found guilty to the said extent and only

one increment has been stopped with cumulative effect which

does not want interference by this court.

5. I have considered the submissions.

6. The scope of interference in departmental inquiry is limited.

The Supreme court in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus

P. Gunasekaran : (2015) 2 SCC 610 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 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

(4 of 5) [CW-1076/2010]

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."

7. In view of above, this court reaches to the conclusion.

Admittedly, no procedural illegality can be said to have committed

(5 of 5) [CW-1076/2010]

in the course of the inquiry. The findings recorded by the inquiry

officer have been thoroughly examined by the disciplinary

authority and the disciplinary authority has held the petitioner

guilty of committing the mistake.

8. The findings and conclusions of the disciplinary authority as

confirmed by the Reviewing authority are found to be based on an

admitted position that petitioner had sent the sample in Form 18.

The mistake caused by the petitioner resulted in the procedural

discrepancies which hindered the department from taking a

prosecution against the concerned manufactures.

9. In this circumstances, therefore the punishment has been

awarded of stopping of one increment with cumulative effect

examining on the anvil of proportionality also.