[2026:RJ-JP:1751] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6995/2005 Satyaveer Singh Chandrawat S/o Ratan Singh aged 32 years, Resident of Nalla Mohalla, Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Home Secretary, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Superintendent of Police, District Jhalawar, Jhalawar. ----Non-petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Saini for Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishesh Sharma for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 15/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 17.03.1999/27.02.1999 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Jhalawar, whereby penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has further challenged order dated 12.09.2000, whereby review petition filed by the petitioner to review the order of penalty has also been dismissed. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar. One charge-sheet dated 30.05.1998 was issued to the petitioner containing as many as four charges relating to not disposing of the office work timely, which has caused inconvenience to other employees working in S.P. office. 3. Reply of the charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner categorically denying all the charges. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (2 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] was appointed, who conducted inquiry and recorded statements of as many as ten witnesses. Inquiry Officer, gave finding that charges No.1 to 3 are proved against the petitioner, whereas charge No.4 could not be proved against him. Inquiry report was served upon the petitioner and after receiving the inquiry report, the petitioner submitted representation against such report pointing out violation of procedural rules as well as defects in the inquiry. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.02.1999, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before DIG Police Range, Kota-cum-Appellate Authority, however, his appeal was not entertained being time barred by one month and therefore, without examining merits, the same was rejected. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner submitted review petition before the competent authority under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2001. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the penalty order as well as subsequent orders has mentioned that there was no charge relating to integrity or insubordination against the petitioner. He was also not charge-sheeted for causing financial loss either to the Government or any of the person. He submits that the charges, which have been found proved against the petitioner, are only relating to causing some delay in disposing of the work assigned to him. 6. Learned counsel submits that employer's witness PW-6 K.G. Dutti, UDC Office Assistant- S.P. Office was his immediate superior authority and was in the best position to depose correct [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (3 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] facts with regard to functioning and modus operandi of the petitioner. 7. During examination, PW-6 has stated in quite explicit terms that although some delay has occurred in disposing of miscellaneous applications with regard to absence/leave of different employees, yet while examining the reasons for such delay, it came out that vide order dated 23.09.1997, in addition to work originally allocated to the petitioner, work of some other clerk was also assigned to the petitioner, which includes the recruitment matters of LDC, induction course proceedings with regard to different tests, preparation of different lists as well as election relating works. PW-6 has further deposed that had there been no additional work assigned to the petitioner, he would have completed the original work assigned to him within time. As per learned counsel, bare perusal of the statements of immediate superior authority of the petitioner would not make out any kind of misconduct against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel further submits that while analyzing charges No.1 to 3, although the fact with regard to assigning additional work was taken note of by the disciplinary authority, yet the impact thereof over the functioning of the petitioner as well as the fact that allotment of additional work was the root cause of delay in disposal of miscellaneous applications/work in quite abrupt manner, was not at all appreciated either by the Inquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority and rather they have treated such bona fide delay in disposing of the application as misconduct; whereas there was sufficient material on record to prove that on account of heavy burden of work due to awarding [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (4 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] additional duties, despite best efforts the petitioner could not complete his original as well as additional work within time. Learned counsel submits that thus, when there was ample evidence on record to prove the bona fides of the petitioner, however, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, finding of misconduct has been arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, which has further been confirmed by the disciplinary authority without due application of mind. He further submitted that on account of bona fide and non-deliberate reasons, there was delay of a few days in filing appeal, however, ignoring the bona fide reasons, the appeal was dismissed as the same was held to be time barred and the reviewing authority has also not exercised its judicious mind and has mechanically confirmed the penalty order passed by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty order has not only caused stigma over the unblemished career of the petitioner, but has also caused financial loss as well as impediment in the promotional/the financial upgradation benefits of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for quashing the penalty order dated 17.03.1999/27.02.1999 along with the appellate as well as reviewing order. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an Appellate Authority and scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited. 11. Learned Government counsel further submitted that bare perusal of the penalty order would make it clear that entire [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (5 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] material has been meticulously examined by the disciplinary authority and the record reveals that there was admitted delay in disposing miscellaneous applications/work by the petitioner. Hence, in order to enforce discipline, and simultaneously by taking a lenient view in the obtaining circumstances, only a minor penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner, which cannot be treated as disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. This Court is mindful of the fact that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited and an interference can be made only in the cases where there is manifest arbitrariness, illegality or perversity. 14. However, while examining the record of the instant case, more particularly penalty order dated 17.03.1999/27.02.1999, it would come out that although the disciplinary authority has taken note of the statements of K.G. Dutti, UDC Office Assistant- S.P. Office, who was immediate superior authority of the petitioner, and yet there is no application of mind over it, whereas PW-6 has explained all the circumstances, where on account of assignment of additional duties and work of other clerks, there was some delay in disposal of the duties and has also stated in quite uncertain terms that had the additional work not been there with the petitioner, in normal [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (6 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] circumstances, he would have disposed of the work originally allotted to him in time. 15. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that there is no allegation with regard to integrity of the petitioner or even of causing financial loss either of the Government or any of the person. The charges found proved against the petitioner, were fundamentally relating to the time taken in disposing of miscellaneous applications/work assigned to the petitioner, for which even the employer's witness PW-6 has given justification so as to prove the innocence of the petitioner. PW-6 being the immediate superior authority, was in the best position to explain the conduct of the petitioner and since he himself has found the delay to be justified for the obtaining reasons, there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the petitioner had committed misconduct in the instant matter. 16. Although the disciplinary authority has formally taken note of statement of PW-6, there is complete absence of any meaningful appreciation of the evidentiary value and impact of such statements in relation to the alleged misconduct. The penalty order merely makes a passing reference to the statements without examining as to whether such statements contradict or dilute the charges levelled against the delinquent. The failure to assess the relevance and impact of such material piece of evidence demonstrates serious flaw in decision making process, which creates apparent perversity on the face of record. 17. It is settled proposition of law that without there being a proved misconduct on the basis of conclusive evidence, no penalty, even minor in nature, can be imposed upon employee. [2026:RJ-JP:1751] (7 of 7) [CW-6995/2005] 18. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it reflects a perverse approach to the evidence, in as much as the relevant material has although been acknowledged yet not properly appreciated and adjudged, which patently undermines the fairness and legality of disciplinary proceedings. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion, analysis of the record and patent perversity in the decision making process as well as order of penalty, this Court finds it just and proper to allow the writ petition. Order dated 17.03.1999/27.02.1999, along with all consequential appellate/reviewing orders, is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits, which were sanctioned and released to him within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /21