[2025:RJ-JP:20430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8507/2002 Sumer Singh S/o Shri Nan Lal Singh Chauhan aged about 46 years, Resident of Post Bisau, Ward no. 13, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, Commercial Texes Department, Government of Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel (A-3), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3171/2004 Om Prakash Sen S/o Shri mohan Lal Sen, aged about 40 years, R/o office of Commercial Tax Department, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Secretary Department of Personnal (K-III), Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh, Mr. Jaganath Prasad Jat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG, Mr. Aman Bohra Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 14/05/2025 1. In both the writ petitions, impugned punishment order is common, hence, both writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order. 2. Vide impugned punishment order dated 27.03.2002, both writ petitioners have been penalized by the Disciplinary Authority [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (2 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] with “stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect”. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that when petitioners were posted as LDC on the Check-Post, Peelod Circle, Jhunjhunu, they were served with separate charge-sheets, leveling similar nature of charges that they deliberately did not make entries of motor vehicles carrying Chana, Mung, Moth etc. in the register of vehicles and register of food grains and thereby allowing the vehicles to pass through the Check-Post in breach of the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and rules framed therein, with a view to help the traders to evade the payment of tax and ultimately caused huge loss of revenue to the Government. 4. It appears that charge-sheet was issued to as many as 11 delinquent employees, including both petitioners, posted at Check- Post, Peelod Circle and a joint enquiry under Rule 16 & 18 of the CCA Rules was ordered to be conducted by the Government through Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Government Secretariat. The Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated 04.08.1999 did not find the charges proved against anyone and submitted enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry report and issued a note of disagreement dated 01.05.2000, which was duly served upon the petitioners and they replied the same, by submitting representations. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representations of petitioners, held them guilty for the alleged charges and passed a composite punishment order [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (3 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] dated 27.03.2002, whereby petitioners have been punished with stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and similar/ other kind of punishment was also passed against other delinquent employees. 5. The submission of counsel for petitioners is that the Disciplinary Authority has not given any specific and cogent instances against the petitioners for proving the charges and findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, assigning disagreement with the enquiry report, are perverse. 6. In addition, submission of counsel for petitioners is that against the employees and officers of Bikaner Zone of Commercial Taxes Department, Bikaner, on the basis of same preliminary enquiry report, similar nature of charges were leveled, for which charge-sheets were issued under Rule 17 of CCA Rules and after enquiry, all the delinquent employees had been exonerated vide order dated 30.07.2001, hence punishment order passed against the petitioners dated 27.03.2002, impugned herein, is unjustified. It has also been pointed out that against the traders, who allegedly transported their goods without payment of tax on the check-post, huge demands were raised by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jhunjhunu, placing reliance on the record of Sales Tax and Excise Department of State of Haryana, but such demands have been quashed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, vide order dated 21.11.2005 and thereagainst, no further appeal was decided to be filed. 7. Lastly, it has been argued that the fact findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, Department of Personnel, are imaginary [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (4 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] and without any basis as much as factually incorrect, hence impugned punishment order qua petitioners be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondents have supported the punishment order and submitted that same has been passed after due adherence to the principles of natural justice and there is no violation of any statutory rule or procedure of law. The Disciplinary Authority acted well within its jurisdiction, while issuing a note of disagreement with the enquiry report and then opportunity to submit representation by the delinquent employees was given, thereafter considering their representation, the Disciplinary Authority has assigned specific reasons to disagree with the joint enquiry report and has recorded its satisfaction to hold the guilt and misconduct of delinquent employees as proved. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. Hence, such fact findings are not perverse and do not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The punishment order passed against the petitioners and other delinquent employees, too is proportionate to the nature of charges and same also does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Thus, it has been prayed that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard. Considered. 10. The nature of charges levelled against both the petitioners are substantially similar. It has come on record that during period [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (5 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] January 1989 to June 1989, 1632 trucks, loaded with Cereal, Moong, Chana etc. crossed the Check-Post Peelod, without making payment of commercial tax and the entries of such trucks were not made in the register of vehicles as also in the register of food grains. As per record, during this period both the petitioners were posted as LDC at Check-Post Peelod and were responsible for maintaining the record. Since entries of trucks in the record were not made, and virtually such trucks were allowed to pass through the check-post without making payment of tax, hence the traders were permitted to evade payment of taxes. Such deliberate dereliction of duty and misconduct of petitioners and other delinquent employees, has been found proved by the evidence, produced from the side of Department during departmental enquiry. As many as 29 documents, Exhibit P1 to P29, and five witnesses, Sh. Phoolchand Verma, Sh. Rajkumar Vishnoi, Sh. Shaukat Ali, Sh. P.C. Agarwal and Sh. Bhanwarlal Soni (PW 1 to PW 5), were produced from the side of prosecution. In defence evidence, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced on record. 11. A perusal of enquiry report dated 04.08.1999 (Ann.5 with SBCWP No.8507/2002) evince that the Enquiry Officer, instead of appreciating the evidence of prosecution, drew an inference that entries of such trucks at Check-Post Loharu Surajgarh Road, have not been proved to be genuine, hence, mere non-entry of such trucks at Check-Post Peelod, does not lead to an inference that such trucks passed through Check-Post Peelod, without marking entries in the record. It was also presumed that even if the trucks [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (6 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] have passed through the Check-Post Loharu and entries at check post Loharu, are treated to be genuine, there is a possibility that trucks would have passed through alternative Kacha/ Pakka way, instead of passing through Check-Post Peelod. The Enquiry Officer further drew a presumption of innocence of the delinquent employees, while observing that in the year 1988-89, crop of kharif in state of Rajasthan was healthy, so it was well presumed that proceeds would be transported out of State of Rajasthan to Delhi, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh etc. but neither any flying squad was deputed by the Department of Commercial Tax nor any complaint of evading the tax by the traders during period January 1989 to June 1989 was received. 12. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the fact findings recorded by the enquiry officer, holding the charges as not proved against the delinquent employees, drawing adverse presumption against prosecution and ignoring evidence of prosecution. Thereafter, due opportunity to reply on the disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority, was extended to the delinquent employees and after considering their representations, on the basis of appreciation of the documents and statements of prosecution witnesses, the Disciplinary Authority observed that charges of deliberate dereliction of duties and misconduct of the delinquent employees, have been proved. It was clearly observed by the Disciplinary Authority that the adverse inference drawn by the enquiry Officer in its enquiry report is based on presumption & assumption and there is no evidence at all to draw such presumptions. [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (7 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] Since the fact findings of enquiry report were imaginary, hence same were not relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority, rather documentary and oral evidence, which came on record during enquiry, was appreciated. The Disciplinary Authority observed that there is no evidence to draw a presumption that when as per record it is established that entries of such trucks, passing through the Check-Post Loharu, are available, same are not genuine entries and further there is nothing on record to assume that alternative Kacha/ Pakka way, is available for these trucks to circumvent the Check-Post Peelod. Non-deputation of the flying squad or not receiving complaint of tax evasion, is also not a convincing ground to presume innocence of delinquent employees. As per preliminary enquiry report and statements of Sh. P. C Agarwal (Deputy Commissioner, Administration), the record of transit pass at Check-Post Loharu was found to be genuine and as per admission of prosecution witness Sh. G.C. Jain, the factum of passing of 1632 trucks without making payment of commercial tax at Check-Post Peelod was found to be an admitted fact. Thus, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, after due analysis of the evidence of prosecution, found charges proved against the delinquent employees. Such findings cannot be termed as perverse or suffers from any jurisdictional error. 13. Petitioners have been held guilty of charges levelled against them on the basis of appreciation of evidence, available on record, and resort sought to be taken by the counsel for petitioners to the order dated 30.07.2001, exonerating employees and officers of Bikaner Zone, does not brush aside the evidence, available on [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (8 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] record against the petitioners. Similarly, order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner dated 21.11.2005, setting aside the demands of commercial taxes raised against the traders, does not render any support to the case of petitioners, to set aside the findings of guilt and misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order of punishment dated 27.03.2002, after due appreciation of evidence. 14. It is well settled that scope of judicial review against the proceedings of departmental enquiry, is very limited. It is not in nature of an appeal and scope of judicial review is confined to examine, whether decision making process is legitimate and the statutory rules were duly followed or not. The decision of Disciplinary Authority is not within scope of judicial review on merits. It has been expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that it is not the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise powers of judicial review and to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the basis of re-appreciation of evidence. 15. In the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723], the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of departmental enquiry against a public servant was discussed and the Apex Court in Para No.7, observed as under:- 7………….The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: iris concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (9 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where 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 a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly 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, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be 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 of the Constitution. 16. In case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC 563] in Para No.22 & 23, the Apex Court has held as under:- “22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffers from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.” [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (10 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] 23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. 17. In a recent judgment in case of State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064], while reiterating and following the ratio decidendi expounded in case of Sree Rama Rao (Supra), the Apex Court finally has held & observed as under:- "It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court. " 18. Having considered the case of petitioners on the parameters expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, this Court finds that there is no violation of [2025:RJ-JP:20430] (11 of 11) [CW-8507/2002] principles of natural justice and neither the decision making process suffers from any violation of statutory rules, nor the fact findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, rather perusal of findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority clearly show that same are based on appreciation of evidence. 19. The conclusion of enquiry report was found to be passed on assumptions and presumptions, which is well evident as has been discussed in foregoing paragraphs. The charges leveled against the petitioners and other delinquent employees in respect of deliberate dereliction of duty and misconduct, allowing to pass trucks of traders through Check-post Peelod without payment of commercial tax, due to which Government suffered huge losses, are well proved and punishment inflicted on the petitioners also does not suffer from any arbitrary exercise of powers. It cannot be said that the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, is disproportionate to the nature of charges. 20. The net outcome of discussions and enunciations is that the writ petitions are devoid of substance and same are hereby dismissed. 21. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/13-14