[2026:RJ-JP:21616] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13687/2025 Prem Singh Patwari S/o Late Shri Bishan Swaroop, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Gram Mundia, Tehsil Balghat, Karauli (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, Government Of Rajasthan. 4. District Collector (Land Revenue), Karauli, Government Of Rajasthan. 5. Tehsildar (Land Revenue), Todabheem (Karauli), Government Of Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 21/05/2026 1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to assail his punishment order dated 29.11.2021 passed by District Collector, Karauli, wherein and whereunder, he was punished with penalty of stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect and the order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.08.2022, which has been denied to be reviewed by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated [2026:RJ-JP:21616] (2 of 4) [CW-13687/2025] 05.04.2023, hence, both subsequent orders have also been challenged. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Indisputably, petitioner was served with memorandum of charge-sheet dated 03.04.2020, in respect of inclusion of the members of 7 families as resident of village Nandpura (Lalarampura) whereas they were resident of Village Bhadoli. Petitioner submitted his reply/explanation to such inclusion and tried to make out a case that their parental house were located within periphery of Village Lalarampura but on summoning the factual report from the Tehsildar and SDO, as per the Ration Card and other documents, members of 7 families were found to be residents of village Bhadoli, hence, the explanation/reply of the petitioner against the charges levelled, were not found to be correct, more so, such inclusion was found to be a wilful malicious act, in the backdrop of factual matrix where the dispute of demarcation/limitation of two villages (Lalarampura and Bhadoli) was there. 4. It has further been disputed that the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing before passing the punishment order and considering the nature of charges, the punishment has been awarded to him. 5. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal against the order of punishment dated 29.11.2021 which has been considered on merits and the appeal has been dismissed. The review petition, filed by petitioner thereagainst, has also been dismissed. 6. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the High Court in respect of Disciplinary proceedings is extremely narrow as [2026:RJ-JP:21616] (3 of 4) [CW-13687/2025] has been expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. reported in [(2009) 15 SCC 620], wherein the principles enunciated in case of State of A.P. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao:[(1975) 2 SCC 557] were followed and reiterated prescribing the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of disciplinary proceedings and decision thereof. 7. In the case of Central Industrial Security Force vs. Abrar Ali reported in [AIR 2017 SC 200], larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the judgment passed in Union of India & ors vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 which laid down the scope of interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, thus:- “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, re- appreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge 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 Articles 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 inquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the inquiry 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; [2026:RJ-JP:21616] (4 of 4) [CW-13687/2025] (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. 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." 8. For the discussion and enunciation made hereinabove, net outcome is that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and writ petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/5