HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14012/2020 Ram Laxman S/o Shri Birdhi Lal, aged about 48 Years, Resident of Akash Ganga Colony, Khanpur, Presently Working As Asstt. Development Officer (Panchayat Prasar Adhikari) Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Special Secretary and Director, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar. 4. The Junior Technical Assistant, Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Dhriti Sharma for Mr. Kunal Rawat Ms. Aradhna Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat-Addl.G.C. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner has been punished with a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effects. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 04.08.2020. (2 of 3) [CW-14012/2020] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a chargesheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner with the charge that while working on the post of Asstt. Development Officer, at Panchayat Samiti, Kanpur, certain construction work of public toilets were constructed in a negligent manner and the pits/chambers were not covered properly, hence a eight years old boy has lost his life on 09.09.2018, by failing in the said pit. Treating this aforesaid incident as negligence on the part of the petitioner, a charge-sheet was served upon him. Counsel submits that a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted with the specific plea that the petitioner remained posted there from 10.05.2017 till 19.02.2018 while the incident has occurred on 09.09.2018, for which the petitioner was not responsible. Counsel submits that this material fact was overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority and the order impugned was passed. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not posted at the relevant time, hence, there was no negligence on his part, thus under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the construction of the public toilets started during the tenure of the petitioner and there was negligence on his part as the pits/chambers were not covered properly that is why the incident had occurred and a boy of the age of eight years lost his life. Counsel submits that a finding of fact has been recorded not only by the Disciplinary Authority but also by the Appellate Authority by (3 of 3) [CW-14012/2020] passing a reasoned and speaking order, which requires no interference of this Court. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Authority for the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, wherein it has been specifically held that the construction work of public toilets started on 01.02.2018 and at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted there. This fact has also been recorded that certain negligence occurred during the process of constructions work and the pits/chambers of the toilets were not covered because of the said negligence while completing the aforesaid work. The incident occurred on 09.09.2018, where a child of the age of eight years has lost his life. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, which requires any interference of this Court. 7. The present writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. 8. Stay application(s) and all pending application(s) if any, also stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/97