[2025:RJ-JP:2410] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8324/2020 Mahesh Verma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of House No. 266, Matrushree, Near Nutan Gas Agency, Hiranmagri, Sector No. 11, Udaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Rathore for Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/01/2025 1. By means of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 24.08.2018 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been punished with the penalty of censure after holding an enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 15.11.2017 served upon the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 2. Having heard counsel for petitioner and from perusal of pleadings and record, it is not in dispute that petitioner being posted as Joint Director, Agriculture Department was serve with a [2025:RJ-JP:2410] (2 of 3) [CW-8324/2020] charge-sheet dated 15.11.2017 for violating FCO Rules, 1985 to re-examine the sample from the Government Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Udaipur, despite of rejecting the sample by the Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur. It is further not in dispute that petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and participated in the enquiry. After conclusion of enquiry, petitioner was accorded an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the punishment and then the punishment order was passed. 3. The legal proposition of law in respect of interference with findings of the disciplinary authority and punishment order passed after conducting disciplinary enquiry, within exercise of powers of judicial review by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are well settled and after following the proposition of law as set out in celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC 563] in Para No.22 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:2410] (3 of 3) [CW-8324/2020] 4. Further, the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1064], in Para No.42, held 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." 5. Having considered the case of petitioner on the touchstone of judgments delivered by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice, nor it is a case of punishment of petitioner disproportionate to the nature of charges. Re-evaluation of evidence afresh by the High Court, to arrive at different conclusion, than recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is not permissible in law, more particularly while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. As a final result, the present writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /18