[2026:RJ-JP:3612] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1987/2001 Hetram Meena Son of Shri Onkar Nath Meena, aged about 56 years, resident of D-612, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur at present working as Dy. S.P., Aklera Distt. Jhalwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Secretary, Department of Personnel, (Karmik-3), Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be leased to call for the entire record relating to this case and after perusing the same may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition :- i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 6/1/99, 11/7/2000 and 2/4.12.2000 alongwith the order dated 3/6/98 be [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (2 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] quashed and setaside and be order to be withdrawn with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner. ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be further directed to promoted the petitioner on the post of Additional S.P., S.P. and further promotions including selection scale, supertime scale etc. by not considering the aforesaid punishment referred in para (i) of the prayer. iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioner according to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded. iv) Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as “The CCA Rules, 1958”) dated 31.01.1992. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry submitted the enquiry report dated 19.10.1992 in which charges No.1 & 3 were not found proved and charge No.2 was partly found proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer put a disagreement note and found all the charges proved against the petitioner vide its order dated 03.06.1998. Against the disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Disciplinary Authority on 14.08.1998. The Disciplinary Authority considering the representation submitted by the petitioner against the disagreement note found all the charges proved against the [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (3 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] petitioner and awarded the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 06.01.1999. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner filed a review petition before the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing Authority after considering the review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner passed the order dated 11.07.2000 modifying the punishment awarded to the petitioner from stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effects to three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority, this writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the charges No.1 & 3 have rightly not been found proved against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the charge No.2 was also found only partly proved. Counsel further submits that the Disciplinary Authority while issuing the disagreement note has not considered the report of the Enquiry Officer properly and further the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner against its disagreement note. Counsel submits that the charge against the petitioner was of not sending the police force on demand made by the Income Tax Officer while conducting the raid whereas sufficient police force was already available there with them. Counsel further submits that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority passed the orders in a mechanical manner without considering the record of the case. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (4 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vasudeo K. Hardasani Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 1989 (1) RLR 99. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the time of incident, the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer and having the charge of sending the police force to the Officers of Income Tax Department who were conducting the income tax raid at a particular house. Counsel submits that on repeated requests being made by the concerned officer, the petitioner denied to send the additional police force. Counsel further submits that the petitioner in reply to the disagreement note has only submitted that there was no requirement of additional force to the raiding party. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806. 5. Counsel further submits that the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner after following the due procedure prescribed under the law and after conducting the enquiry as prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus P. Gunasekaran reported (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held as under:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (5 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (6 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). Interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). Correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of [2026:RJ-JP:3612] (7 of 7) [CW-1987/2001] punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 8. This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no procedural irregularity committed by the Department in passing of the orders against the petitioner; secondly, the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted against the petitioner by the department following the due procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958; thirdly, this Court while considering the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot re-appreciate the evidence acting as an Appellate Court. 9. 9. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 10. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /2