[2026:RJ-JP:1195-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 831/2019 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range (Ii), Jaipur. 4. The District Superintendent Of Police, Jhunjhunu. ----Appellants Versus Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, By Caste Chamar, Resident Of Village Sigdi, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Ms. Sunita Meena on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehla with Ms. Sunita Mehla Mr. Nagendra Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 12/01/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “employer”) challenging the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “employee”) was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the employee was working on the post of Constable, he was served with a charge- sheet vide memorandum dated 20.12.1996. Three charges were levelled against him, all relating to his unauthorized absence from duty. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a departmental enquiry, [2026:RJ-JP:1195-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-831/2019] found the employee guilty of all the three charges. The Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 21.05.1999, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The statutory appeal preferred by the employee was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.04.2000. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 21.05.1999 and 07.04.2000, the employee filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the employer. 3. Learned counsel for the employer submits that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in setting aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, as the learned Single Judge has re-appreciated the evidence in this matter. He further submits that there was no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry by the enquiry officer and the punishment imposed was based on the findings duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He further submits that the employee belongs to disciplinary forces and had remained absent from duty on several occasions without sanctioned leave, aggregating to about 52 days and further prayed for allowing the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the employee has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the employer and submits that the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition as the employee was a low-paid employee and his absence from duty was due to unavoidable circumstances. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:1195-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-831/2019] 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:1195-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-831/2019] 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; [2026:RJ-JP:1195-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-831/2019] (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.” 6. This appeal filed by the employer deserves to be allowed; for the reasons, firstly, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding as to how the departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was faulty, secondly, the employee was a member of disciplinary forces, therefore, in view of the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no lenient view can be taken for such employees of disciplinary forces who remain on unauthorized leave, thirdly, from the record, we find that the proper procedure for conducting the Departmental Enquiry has been followed by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority, lastly, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence. 7. In that view of the matter, the present appeal is allowed. The order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /176