HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5865/2001 Sumer Singh Raghaw S/O late Shri Ajit Singh, aged about 56 years, R/O Village Post Tasing, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) at present working Forester in Behror Range, Forest deptt., Distt. Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1 State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, Forest Department, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Conservator of Forest (Social Forestry), Forest department, Behror Region, District Alwar. 4. Ranger, Forest department, Behror Region, Alwar. 5. Goganram, Forest Guard, Forest department, Behror Region, District Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.11.2001 passed by the respondents, by which the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that two different charge-sheets with three different charges were served upon (2 of 5) [CW-5865/2001] the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply to all the charges, but without taking a note of the reply, the order impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that the charge against the petitioner was that he did not handover the charge after his relieving and when inspection was done, various articles were not found. Counsel submits that two different audits were conducted and every time, the audit party submitted conflicting reports with regard to deficit articles and their value. Counsel submits that in the three audit reports dated 30.05.1992, the value of deficit articles was found as Rs.19,678/- Rs.31,870/- and Rs.61,335/-. Counsel submits that subsequently, when other audit was conducted, the value of deficit article was found to be Rs.550/-. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents were not clear and specific about their charges and without taking into account the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was transferred and in-spite of getting order of his transfer, he did not handover the charge to the person concerned and when the inspection was done, shortage of several articles were found to be deficit in the audit proceedings. Counsel submits that accordingly charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after holding inquiry, the charges were found to be proved (3 of 5) [CW-5865/2001] and even, the reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into count and accordingly the impugned punishment order has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that three charges were levelled against the petitioner including the charge of not handing over the charge after relieving and non-obedience towards the commands of the higher officers for handing over the charge to the person concerned and certain deficit goods were found when the inspection of the record was done by the audit party. On the basis of the aforesaid three charges, a domestic inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, two different replies were submitted, but the same were not taken into count. 6. The impugned order indicates that even though the reply was submitted by the petitioner after a slight delay, the contents of the same were still taken into count. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is that 'whether this Court can interfere with the finding of fact recorded against the petitioner after holding inquiry against him. 7. Looking to the charges framed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and looking towards two different audit reports revealing contradictory findings, it is clear that (4 of 5) [CW-5865/2001] certain deficit articles were there at the time of inspection. The petitioner did not handover the charge in-spite of his transfer and he has failed to obey the commands of the higher officials, such an act definitely amounts to misconduct on his part. 8. The employee is not said to be relieved from his office unless, he hands over the charge to the other incumbent, who has joined the place of posting after such transfer, but looking to the fact that the order of punishment i.e. withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect appears to be on higher side, a lesser punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that if the punishment is found to be disproportionate looking to the misconduct of a delinquent, then, under such circumstances, the matter is required to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders, but here in the instant case, the petitioner has retired long back, hence, under these circumstances, the matter cannot be remitted back to the disciplinary authority by passing appropriate orders. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and looking to the act and misconduct of the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to reduce his penalty from punishment of stoppage of two annual increments to stoppage of one annual increment. (5 of 5) [CW-5865/2001] 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order stands modified. 11. Consequences to follow. 12. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/10