[2025:RJ-JP:21834] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1454/2004 Dr. Madan Gopal Bhattar S/o Sh. Hira Lal Bhattar, aged about 42 years, R/o 1-D-143, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Non-Petitioners. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devang Saini for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Judgment Reserved on:- 16/05/2025 Pronounced on:- 27/05/2025 1. The instant petition for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner laying challenge to the Order dated 07.06.2002 (Annx.9) imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect as well as Order dated 05.07.2002 (Annx.10) rejecting the review petition filed by him with a further prayer to direct the respondents to sanction leave to him for the period for which he had already submitted leave application. 2. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that while he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (2 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] Centre, Kalu, District Bikaner, he applied for Privilege Leave for the period 27.04.1998 to 26.05.1998 on 06.04.1998 before the CM & HO, Bikaner. In the meantime, on account of critical condition of his grand-mother, the petitioner gave leave application to Shri Rewat Ram, Class-IV Employee of PHC Kalu and proceeded from Kalu to Nokha in the night of 08.04.1998 as he received a call between 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. informing him about serious condition of his grand-mother. Thereafter, he went to Madras for check-up of his grand- mother. As per the petitioner, the application for leave from 27.04.1998 to 26.05.1998 was never refused by the CM & HO. Thereafter he submitted another application on 27.05.1998 seeking extension of leave upto 15.06.1998 on the ground of his suffering from Vertigo. Meanwhile, the CM & HO, Bikaner issued the Order dated 25.05.1998 placing him under awaiting posting order with a direction to report in the office of Director, Medical & Health. The petitioner reported on duty in the office of Director, Medical & Health on 16.06.1998 and continued to remain on duty till 06.07.1998. The Director, Medical & Health issued the Order dated 06.07.1998, vide which the petitioner was posted at Primary Health Centre, Bambloo, District Bikaner. The petitioner again moved leave application along with sick certificate before CM & HO, Bikaner on 07.07.1998 seeking to grant medical leave from 07.07.1998 to 31.07.1998 on the ground of suffering from vertigo. Thereafter, the petitioner moved applications on 01.08.1998, 20.08.1998 and 10.09.1998 seeking to extend [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (3 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] his leave upto 19.08.1998, 09.09.1998 and 25.09.1998, respectively, on the ground of ailment of his grand-mother. The petitioner was transferred to PBM, Hospital, Bikaner vide Order dated 18.09.1998 and he joined the duty on 26.09.1998 and since then, he was continuously discharging his duties at PBM Hospital, Bikaner. He was served with a charge-sheet on 29.04.1999, wherein the charge levelled against him was that he remained absent from duty and avoided the orders of the higher authorities. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet along with documents. The respondents vide Order dated 19.12.2000 appointed Additional Commissioner (First), Department of Inquiries as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charge levelled against him. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its Enquiry Report on 29.01.2002 concluding that he was not willfully absent from duty and recommended to drop departmental enquiry proceedings against him. The disciplinary authority communicated its disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 15.04.2002 and the petitioner was asked to submit his representation, which he submitted on 29.04.2002. After examining the matter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 07.06.2002 imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments against him. The petitioner preferred the review petition, which was rejected on 05.07.2002. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition denying averments of the petitioner in the writ petition and [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (4 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] came with the case that the petitioner remained absent from duty without sanctioning leave. The application for leave from 27.04.1998 to 26.05.1998 was not sanctioned by the competent authority. The petitioner remained absent from his duty from 09.04.1998 to 15.04.1998 without sanctioning leave. He was intimated to remain present on duty by sending telegrams on 17.04.1998, 25.04.1998 and 05.05.1998 but he neither reported on his duty nor responded to the said telegrams. Therefore, he was placed under APO with a direction to report in the office of the Director, Medical & Health. The petitioner remained in the office of Director, Medical & Health from 16.06.1998 to 06.07.1998. On account of his willful absent from duty without sanctioning leave and avoiding the orders of the higher authorities, he was served with a charge-sheet on 29.04.1999. The petitioner submitted his reply and vide Order dated 19.12.2000, Additional Commissioner-I, Department of Inquiries was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report but since the findings were not correct on the basis of relevant record and facts of the case, the Disciplinary Authority in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, vide Letter dated 15.04.2002 intimated the petitioner regarding dissenting comments and asked to submit his representation, which was submitted by him on 29.04.2002. After considering the representation of the petitioner and going through all relevant record, the order of punishment dated 07.06.2002 was passed. The review petition of the petitioner against said [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (5 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] order was rejected on 05.07.2002. The petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend his case, see relevant record, cross-examine the witnesses and submit oral as well as documentary evidence. The orders were issued as per rules after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same warrant no interference. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as he was not willfully absent from duty and proceeded on leave after submitting leave application, which was never refused by the sanctioning authority. The leave was extended by sending respective applications, which too was never refused. He has contended submitted that there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to pass the punishment order, which is without any authority of law. No reason was given for dissenting with the enquiry report. He has also contended that orders were passed against him without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and contrary to the findings of Enquiry Officer. Neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing the order dated 05.07.2002. He has also contended that before passing the orders impugned, reply as well as documents submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the disciplinary as well as reviewing authority. He has also contended that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature of alleged misconduct. [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (6 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner proceeded on leave without sanctioning the leave and despite information given to him to join his duty, neither he reported on duty nor responded to the telegrams sent to him. The petitioner remained on leave from 09.04.1998 to 26.05.1998, 27.05.1998 to 15.06.1998 and 07.07.1998 to 29.04.1999, when charge-sheet was issued to him, without prior sanctioning the leave. Therefore, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him, in which he was given full opportunity to defend his case. He has also submitted that the disciplinary authority being competent authority was not in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, therefore, while communicating his dissenting comments, the petitioner was asked to submit his representation and it was after considering the representation and examining the material on record, the disciplinary authority passed the order inflicting punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments against him, which cannot be said to be disproportionate. The review petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected affirming the order of punishment imposed against him. He has contended that it is settled position that reappreciation and reappraisal of evidence led before the enquiry officer and examination of findings recorded by the enquiry officer as a court of appeal is not open in exercise of writ jurisdiction except for permissible grounds. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (7 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 310. 7. I have heard rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 8. In the case in hand, a perusal of record reveals that while working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Kalu, District Bikaner, the petitioner had applied for Privilege Leave for the period 27.04.1998 to 26.05.1998 on 06.04.1998 but same was not sanctioned to him. The petitioner submitted an application on 08.04.1998 and proceeded on leave w.e.f. 09.04.1998 on the ground of serious condition of his grand-mother and continued to remain on leave after 26.05.1998 onwards i.e. 27.05.1998 to 15.06.1998 and then from 07.07.1998 to 29.04.1999 on the ground of serious condition of his grand-mother and/or his own ailment. The leave applied for by the petitioner was not sanctioned, rather, he was intimated by sending telegrams on 17.04.1998, 25.04.1998 and 05.05.1998 to remain present on his duty immediately. Though, the petitioner has disputed that no such telegram was received by him but it is not the case of the petitioner that said telegrams were sent on wrong or incomplete address. Still, the petitioner did not choose to report on his duty or respond to the department. The petitioner was granted opportunity to defend as he himself produced several documents and witnesses in his defence. Though, the Enquiry Officer found that charge levelled against [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (8 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] the petitioner was not proved but in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority intimated the petitioner regarding dissenting comments and asked to submit his representation, which was submitted by him on 29.04.2002. After examining the material, the disciplinary authority concluded that charge of willfully absent from duty and violating the orders of the higher authorities was proved against the petitioner and imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, though, Rule 16 prescribes for major penalties including dismissal from service. It is not the case of the petitioner that departmental proceedings held against him in a manner inconsistent or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case. The petitioner was not only given opportunity to defend his case during enquiry but thereafter also by asking him to submit his representation before passing punishment order. The petitioner has not been able to show that notice was mandatory before deciding the review. 9. The scope of judicial review in dealing with departmental enquiries came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. vs. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557, wherein it was held as under :- [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (9 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] “The High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court 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. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities 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 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.” In the case of Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the scope and limits of interference in service matters relating to departmental enquiry has held in Para 15 as under :- “15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgement on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the [2025:RJ-JP:21834] (10 of 10) [CW-1454/2004] instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in out thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send the matter back to the High Court.” 10. Applying the ratio of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is not open to this Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. The petitioner has not been able to establish that his case is covered by the grounds warranting interference in the punishment order by this Hon’ble Court as encapsulated in the aforesaid decisions. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 12. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J GARIMA /245