[2025:RJ-JP:30148] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10/2004 Suresh Chand Singhal Son of Shri Moti Lal Gupta, Mahajan, Resident of Pande Ka Kunwa, Karauli, District Karauli, Presently Posted as Head Master, Government Girls, Primary School, Moder. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Education Officer-Cum-Additional Chief Executive Officer, Elementary Education, Karauli, District Karauli. 3. The Director, Education Department (Primary), Bikaner. 4. The Deputy Director, Primary, Education Department, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokendra Sharma on behalf of Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC with Mr. Saumil Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/08/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 06.05.2003 passed by the Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kota, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted on the post of Head Master of Government Girls’ Primary School, Moder, Karauli. The charge-sheet dated 13.09.2002 [2025:RJ-JP:30148] (2 of 4) [CW-10/2004] containing as many as two charges relating to his irregularities in selling the food articles meant for nutrition of the students, as well as for not properly conducting the educational activities in the school. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet on 26.09.2002 denying the allegations therein and stated that the Wheat alleged to be sold by the petitioner to any other person was actually received in March, 2002, whereas the allegations of misconduct were of February, 2002. Thus, the allegations were totally misconceived. It was also stated that as the petitioner was placed on deputation in the said school therefore, the allegations of not conducting the educational activities properly were also not tenable against the person who was simply on deputation. 3. As the charge-sheet was issued under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, therefore, only on the basis of reply filed by the petitioner and after considering the record, penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2002. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and after considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, as awarded earlier vide order dated 29.11.2002 was reduced to the penalty of withholding only one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 06.05.2003 passed by the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Kota. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that although the Appellate Authority has given indulgence [2025:RJ-JP:30148] (3 of 4) [CW-10/2004] by reducing the penalty, yet the penalty in itself was totally illegal and excessive, therefore, instead of modifying the earlier penalty order dated 29.11.2002, the entire penalty order ought to have been quashed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department would submit that the disciplinary authority passed the penalty order after examining the record as well as reply to the charge-sheet filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has meticulously considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and after taking relevant view, the penalty has been reduced by the Appellate Authority itself. Although, the charges leveled against the petitioner were of serious nature, yet looking to the past services rendered by the petitioner and by taking a lenient view, only minor penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in quite strange manner, feeling aggrieved by the suspension and disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner also lodged one criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli under Section 166 IPC. After examining the record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2003. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that scope of interference in writ jurisdiction, while examining the cases with regard to disciplinary enquiry is very limited. Petitioner has utterly failed to point out any procedural irregularity in the enquiry [2025:RJ-JP:30148] (4 of 4) [CW-10/2004] proceedings, nor the penalty imposed against the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate. 9. Hence, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/24