Rajasthan High Court
Deen Dayal vs State on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2690/1999
Deen Dayal Son of Shri Molaram Dhakar, R/o Bichpuri Patti, Weir,
District Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The District Collector(Settlement), Bharatpur.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel (ka-3), Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Chandel, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
27/07/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers;
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed
that the entire record relating to
this case may kindly be called for
from respondents and be kindly
examined; and
(i) By an appropriate writ,
direction or order the impugned
order dated 15.09.1998 passed by
respondent No. 3 against the
petitioner may kindly be quashed
and set aside.
(ii) That any other appropriate
relief to which the petitioner is
found entitled be also granted.
(iii) That the writ petition be
kindly allowed with costs."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued a
charge sheet dated 18.02.1991 to the petitioner & Harish
Chandra Katara under Rule-18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, thereafter the
Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to
(2 of 5) [CW-2690/1999]
the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.11.1996 in which charges
levelled against the petitioner were found proved. The Enquiry
Officer has given his finding against the petitioner that he
concealed the material facts and submitted a false report to the
Tehsildar. The Enquiry Officer in his report has recorded that Sub-
Divisional Officer, Bayana ordered only for partition of disputed
land and Khatedari rights were not given, despite that the
petitioner has mentioned their names in the revenue record as
Khatedars of the disputed land. It was further recorded that the
petitioner has given khatedari rights to some persons on the
Government land and caused loss of Rs. 5800/- to the
Government.
3. On the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of
10% pension for five years against Harish Chandra Katara, R.A.S.
and so far as present petitioner is concerned, imposed penalty of
stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect,
vide order dated 15.09.1998.
4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 15.09.1998.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer as
well as Disciplinary Authority both have not considered the facts
and law involved in this matter and failed to appreciate the
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner on record and
prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.09.1998.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) opposed
the writ petition.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3 of 5) [CW-2690/1999]
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy
General Manger (Appellate Authority) and Ors. Vs. Ajai
Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 in Para No.
29 has held as under;
"29. The Constitutional Court while
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial
review Under Article 226 or Article 136
of the Constitution would not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at in
the departmental enquiry proceedings
except in a case of malafides or
perversity, i.e., where there is no
evidence to support a finding or where
a finding is such that no man acting
reasonably and with objectivity could
have arrived at that findings and so
long as there is some evidence to
support the conclusion arrived at by
the departmental authority, the same
has to be sustained."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pravin Kumar
Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC
471 in Para-28 has held as under;
"28. It is thus well settled that the
Constitutional Courts while exercising
their powers of judicial review would
not assume the role of an appellate
authority. Their jurisdiction is
circumscribed by limits of correcting
errors of law, procedural errors
leading to manifest injustice or
violation of principles of natural
justice. Put differently, judicial review
is not analogous to venturing into the
merits of a case like an appellate
authority."
10. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding of fact that the
petitioner has caused loss to the State Government by entering
the name of various persons as Khatedar of the Government land
and also gave the Khatedari rights to some persons against the
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Disciplinary
(4 of 5) [CW-2690/1999]
Authority based on the Enquiry Report has, in my considered view,
rightly passed the order dated 15.09.1998.
11. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the Enquiry Officer has rightly
recorded a finding against the petitioner with regard to causing
loss to the State Government based on the documentary evidence
which, in my considered view, is not liable to be interfered with at
this stage; secondly, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of
penalty against the petitioner based on the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer and proper procedure has been
followed while awarding punishment to the petitioner which is not
liable to be interfered with; lastly, in view of the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Deputy General
Manger (Appellate Authority) & Pravin Kumar (both supra),
no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
12. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /C-1
(5 of 5) [CW-2690/1999]
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
