VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the charge sheet dated July 10, 1997, order of converting enquiry from Rule 16 to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules) dated December 8, 1997, order of punishment dated August 4, 1998 of the Disciplinary Authority and order of Reviewing Authority dated March 11, 1999.

(2.) THE grievance projected by the petitioner is that initially enquiry under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules was initiated against him and charge sheet was served on July 10, 1997 which contained three charges of flouting the Government order in carrying out the transfers of 25 teachers, releasing payment by cash instead of cheque and releasing the amount of subsidy with much delay. After receiving the reply of the petitioner the respondent converted the enquiry from Rule 16 to Rule 17 of 1958 Rules. THEreafter the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated August 4, 1998 imposed punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Review petition submitted by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected on March 11, 1999.

(3.) "the High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a Court of appeal, said their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of A. P. vs. Sree Rama Rao (3), over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant; it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated, whether there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. "