[2025:RJ-JP:17562] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1864/2015 Surendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Gordhan Ram, aged about 50 years R/o Village Post Kalarbari, Tehsil Muhana, District Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General Of Police Jaipur Range-Ii, Jaipur 3. Superintendent Of Police, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 25/04/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the State Government through Home Department (for brevity, 'reviewing authority') whereby, while dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioner, the order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 (for brevity, 'appellate authority') partly dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2005 passed by the respondent no.3 (for brevity, 'disciplinary authority') imposing a penalty upon the petitioner of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect in an enquiry under Rule 17 [2025:RJ-JP:17562] (2 of 4) [CW-1864/2015] of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, 'Rules of 1958'), has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, a Constable Driver, was served upon with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 13.05.2005 wherein, it was alleged that he remained wilfully absent from duty for a period of 145 days. After conducting the inquiry, he was punished with the penalty, as stated hereinabove, by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.09.2005. In the appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner, the appellate authority, while partly allowing the same, reduced the penalty to the stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. The review petition preferred thereagainst by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the reviewing authority vide order dated 15.04.2009. Assailing the impugned order, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority erred in partly dismissing the appeal despite holding that he was sick for some time. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned be quashed and set aside and he be exonerated from the charge levelled against him vide memorandum dated 13.05.2005. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, submits that the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches inasmuch as assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15.04.2009, the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2015 with no explanation for this inordinate delay. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:17562] (3 of 4) [CW-1864/2015] Heard. Considered. The charge against the petitioner was of remaining wilfully absent for a period of 145 days. Indisputably, he was absent from duty for a period of 145 days. The question is whether it was wilful or not. The appellate authority has held that from the documents submitted by the petitioner, it was revealed that he was sick for some time; but, since the medical certificate(s) submitted by him was not in accordance with rules, instead of exonerating him, taking a lenient and sympathetic view, the penalty was reduced to stoppage of one annual grade increment from the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The findings of the appellate authority that the petitioner was sick for some time (not ill for whole of the time as claimed), and that the medical certificate(s) submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with rules, is not under challenge. It is not petitioner's case that either there was no rule requiring production of the medical certificate(s) justifying absence without leave or that the medical certificate(s) submitted by him was in accordance with the rules. In view thereof, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority. This Court also finds force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the writ petition suffering from the delay and laches. The review petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2009 whereas, the writ petition was preferred in the month of February, 2015, i.e., with a delay of almost six years. [2025:RJ-JP:17562] (4 of 4) [CW-1864/2015] Since, in the instant case, the writ petition has been preferred with an inordinate delay of about 6 years from the date of passing of the dismissal the review petition with no explanation whatsoever in the memo of writ petition for it, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissing for the reasons stated hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/103