[2026:RJ-JP:3615] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3986/2001 Smt. Rajamma K.K. W/o Shri D.G. Unnithan, aged about 52 years, Resident of 63/97, Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Director, Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department , Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/01/2026 1. None present on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. 2. This writ petition filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 7th December, 1996, order dated 25th October, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order dated 22nd July 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority with all the consequential benefits. (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any prejudicial order if passed by the respondents during the pendency of Writ Petition, the same may kindly be [2026:RJ-JP:3615] (2 of 4) [CW-3986/2001] taken on record and the same be quashed and set aside. (c) Any other appropriate writ, order or directions which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (d) Cost of the writ petition may be allowed to the petitioners.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with three other co-employees was served with a charge-sheet. After conducting a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment on each of the employees vide order dated 25.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration, vide its order dated 22.07.2000 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner along with other co-employees. 4. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. I have gone through the prayer made in the writ petition and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in 2015 (2) SCC 610 wherein para Nos. 12 & 13 has held as under:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an 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 [2026:RJ-JP:3615] (3 of 4) [CW-3986/2001] 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 re-appreciation 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 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 punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 7. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of penalty after following due process under Section 16 [2026:RJ-JP:3615] (4 of 4) [CW-3986/2001] of the CCA Rules. The Appellate Authority, upon consideration of the entire record, has also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with other co-employees. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the disciplinary proceedings or in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority; secondly, considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the age mentioned therein, the petitioner has already retired from service; and lastly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/04