[2025:RJ-JP:29810] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10487/2014 Ashfaq Mohd. S/o Late Sultan Mohammad, aged about 51 years, R/o Near Jairaj Park, Jhalawarraj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. The Director General Of Police, Phq, Lal Kothi,jaipur 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range,kota Raj. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Baran 5. Mr. Shiv Lal Joshi IPS Presently Posted As Dig Personnel, Phq, Lal Kothi,jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 04/08/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Baran-disciplinary authority whereby, the petitioner-a Stenographer, was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect in an enquiry conducted under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘Rules of 1958’) as also the appellate order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota-appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred thereagainst. [2025:RJ-JP:29810] (2 of 4) [CW-10487/2014] The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was served a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 07.03.2013 wherein, it was alleged that during his posting as Stenographer in the year 2009-2010 in the Confidential Wing of the S.P. Office, he got filled in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short, ‘APAR’) of the Head Constables and Constables mentioned therein from the Assistant Sub-Inspector despite being aware of the fact that she was not competent to fill in the APARs of the concerned employees. After conducting the enquiry as per the procedure prescribed, he was punished with a penalty as stated hereinabove which was unsuccessfully challenged by him by way of an appeal. Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither he was apprised, during the course of enquiry, as to who is the competent authority to fill in the APARs of the employees concerned nor, it is disclosed in the orders impugned. Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the memo of appeal submitted by him against the order dated 30.04.2013, learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact, even recording of APARs of the subject employees was not warranted. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the orders impugned be quashed and set aside and he be exonerated from the charge levelled vide memorandum dated 07.03.2013. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the circular dated 19.07.1986 (Annexure-R/1), would submit that for recording the APARs of the Head Constables and Constables, the Inspector or Sub-Inspector/ [2025:RJ-JP:29810] (3 of 4) [CW-10487/2014] SHO or Equivalent Officer to that post are competent and not the Assistant Sub-Inspector. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. On finding the charge levelled against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 07.03.2013 to be proved, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner and the appeal preferred by him thereagainst also came to be rejected vide order impugned dated 31.08.2020. There is no allegation of procedural infraction in conducting the enquiry. As per the circular dated 19.07.1986, the Assistant Sub-Inspector is not the competent authority for recording the APARs of the Head Constables/Constables and in view thereof, first limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. Even if he was not informed, during the course of departmental enquiry, that who is the competent authority or even if it is not reflected so from the orders impugned, does not affect the merit and gravity of allegation levelled against him. From the material on record, it is established that the petitioner knowingly got the APARs of the subject employees filled in from an incompetent authority. Similarly, the second limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no acceptance as except making a bald assertion in the memo of appeal that circulars did not warrant recording of APARs of the employees concerned, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the same. [2025:RJ-JP:29810] (4 of 4) [CW-10487/2014] Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /86