[2026:RJ-JP:5542] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2627/2004 Jagdish Singh Rajput s/o Shri Samundar Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o village Jahira Tehsil Bawanwas, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Home, State Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota. 3. Superintendent of Police, District Baran. 4. Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Mr. Monindar Singh Faujdar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 05/02/2026 1. The writ petition preferred with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to accept this writ petition and further would be pleased to call for the entire record to the present case and : i. issue a writ of mandamus thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.1997, 31.12.1997 and further consequential orders whereby punishment order of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. ii. issue a writ of mandamus whereby respondents may be directed to allow all consequential benefits to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. [2026:RJ-JP:5542] (2 of 5) [CW-2627/2004] iii. issue any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. iv. An exemplary cost be awarded against the respondents." 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 20.11.1996, the petitioner was acquitted for the charges under Sections 365 and 342 of IPC by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran. It is also contended that for the similar charges, after initiating preliminary enquiry against the petitioner, impugned order dated 30.04.1997 was passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Baran, whereby, one increment of the petitioner was withhold for a period of 3 years. It is also contended that the disciplinary authority did not consider the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case and for the same charges, the petitioner was punished vide impugned order dated 30.04.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.04.1997, however, vide order dated 31.12.1997, the appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. It is further contended that pursuant to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, three increments of the petitioner for subsequent years were withheld. Whereas, the petitioner was punished with withholding of one increment for three years with cumulative effect, thus, the order passed by the authority, withholding three annual increments for three years is contrary to the order passed by the disciplinary authority. [2026:RJ-JP:5542] (3 of 5) [CW-2627/2004] 4. It is also contended that Annexure-6 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Baran to the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer to clarify the order dated 30.04.1997 with regard to the stoppage of increments. 5. Contrarily, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the penalty order remained in force for 3 years and the petitioner was not granted any increment during the said period after imposition of the penalty. There is no contradiction in the penalty imposed upon the petitioner vide Annexure- 2 dated 30.04.1997, as the order itself is clear and indicates that three increments of the petitioner were to be withheld for 3 years and the petitioner was not entitled to future increments. It is also contended that the petitioner remained silent for almost 8 years and challenged the impugned order after a delay of 8 years. It is also contended that the yardstick for reaching a conclusion in a departmental inquiry and a criminal case is different. In a disciplinary inquiry, the conclusion is based upon the principles of preponderance of probabilities, whereas, in a criminal case, the conclusion is drawn on the basis of evidence proving the guilt of a person beyond reasonable doubt. 6. It is also contended that although the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Sections 365 and 342 of IPC in the criminal case, however, in the disciplinary enquiry, there were other charges against the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner was held guilty for the charges relating to the misrepresentation of the facts and using the Government vehicle without any authorization. Therefore, the [2026:RJ-JP:5542] (4 of 5) [CW-2627/2004] writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived, without any force and the same may be dismissed. 7. Heard and perused the material available on record. 8. It is apparent from the record that the initial order stopping the increment by the disciplinary authority was passed on 30.04.1997 vide Annexure- A-2. It is also admitted that appeal against the order dated 30.04.1997 was dismissed on 31.12.1997 vide Annexure A-3. 9. The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court after a delay of almost 8 years. The petitioner has failed to show any reason for the delay in preferring the present writ petition. 10. Even on the merits, it is apparent from the record that in the criminal case, the charges against the petitioner were entirely different with that of the disciplinary inquiry. In the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges relating to misrepresentation of the facts and using the Government vehicle without any authorization. The petitioner himself participated in the disciplinary enquiry. This Court cannot go beyond the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority by appreciating the evidence substituting its own conclusion and act as an appellate authority. 11. It is further to be mentioned that the petitioner has also failed to show that the disciplinary authority acted beyond the available record or concluded contrary to facts. 12. So far as penalty part is concerned, it is apparent from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that for three years, the petitioner's future increment was withheld and the natural implication of the said order is that the petitioner shall not get [2026:RJ-JP:5542] (5 of 5) [CW-2627/2004] increment upto the completion of three financial years and only after completion of three financial years, the petitioner would be entitled for any further future increments. 13. Therefore, no case is made out, the civil writ petition stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/Rachna/109