Prithvi Raj Meena S/O Shri Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2564 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2564 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 2 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Prithvi Raj Meena S/O Shri Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

       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.

(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

(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;

(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.