Bhanwar Lal Naga vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2442 Raj

[2023/RJJD/007396]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 197/2022

Bhanwar Lal Naga S/o Sh. Dana Ram Naga, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o 5C 86, J.N.V, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, State Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/03/2023

This review petition is filed by the applicant seeking review of

the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.6178/2015.

By way of filing the writ petition, the petitioner - Bhanwar

Lal Naga, sought for following reliefs:-

A) "The Charge Sheet dt.23.09.2011 (Annx. 5) may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and kindly be quashed and set aside. B) The respondent may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner in selection scale of R.A.S. with effect from 01.04.2013 because the same is in abeyance because of pendency of this Charge Sheet and release the arrears of selection scale salary to the petitioner @ 24% interest P.A.

[2023/RJJD/007396] (2 of 4) [WRW-197/2022]

C) The action of respondent department may kindly be held illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and an action against the responsible officers may kindly be ordered for this illegality committed by them because their action falls in the category of Criminal act also. If this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper then this petition may also kindly be treated as Criminal Contempt Petition.

D) The personal liability of the guilty officials may kindly be ordered and the interest of delayed payment may be recovered from their pockets.

E) During the pendency of this petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioner prejudicial to his interests, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set aside. F) Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. G) Costs of writ petition and suitable compensation for petitioner's suffering may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court

while deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner had directed

the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings

initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated

23.09.2011 (Annex.5 to the writ petition) within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of the order.

Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, during

pendency of the writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings initiated

[2023/RJJD/007396] (3 of 4) [WRW-197/2022]

against the petitioner pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.09.2011

were already concluded and a punishment vide order dated

31.07.2020 under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1996 of withholding of 10% of pension payable to the

petitioner for a period of one year was imposed upon him.

Learned counsel further submitted that the charge sheet

dated 23.09.2011 was issued by an authority not competent to

initiate the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. It was

urged that the action of the respondents in issuing charge sheet

against the petitioner was not in conformity with the circular dated

21.08.1998 (Annex.-20 to the writ petition), therefore, the order

dated 17.10.2022 deserves to be reviewed.

This Court inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

whether the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the disciplinary

authority imposing penalty upon the petitioner was challenged by

the petitioner in the writ petition or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly submitted that

though the order dated 31.07.2020 was not under challenge, but

the same was placed on record by way of additional affidavit and

therefore, the validity of the same ought to have been examined

by the Court.

Heard.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal

Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., reported in

AIR 2010 SC 475, held that:

"Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court, however,

[2023/RJJD/007396] (4 of 4) [WRW-197/2022]

cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner."

It is a well settled principle that a decision cannot be based

on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and in every

case what has been pleaded has to be found. Without amendment

of the plaint / writ petition, the Court is not entitled to grant relief

not sought for. In other words, a party cannot be granted relief(s)

which was not claimed.

As far as the prayer to review the order dated 17.10.2022

based on the violation of the procedure provided under circular

dated 21.08.1998 is concerned, suffice it to observe that the

attempt to find out error in the order by agitating new arguments

or repeating old and overruled arguments cannot be permitted to

be raised for review of the judgment.

In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any mistake or

error apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of its

power of review.

It is however, made clear that this order will not preclude the

petitioner from availing remedy against the order dated

31.07.2020 passed by the disciplinary authority, if any, available

under the law, before the appropriate legal forum.

Consequently, the present review petition is dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 2-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)