Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—The appellants have preferred this intra-Court appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 13th September 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner was partly allowed and the penalty of compulsory retirement was altered and substituted by penalty of withholding annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

2. Stated in succinct, the factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that while working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of first appellant, Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases), Jodhpur, the respondent-petitioner was served with a memorandum and charge-sheet dated 20th of February 2010 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). In the charge-sheet, under mentioned three charges were attributed to the respondent.

^^vkjksi la[;k ¼1½

;g gS fd mä Jh vkuUn Lo:i 'kekZ d-fy- us bl dk;kZy; esa inLFkkiUu ds nkSjku vf/koäk Jh Mh-ds- yqadM ds vkosnu fnukad 28-5-2009 ds vuqlkj izfrfyfi rS;kj ugha dh rFkk vf/koäk ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj fd;kA vkidk ;g —R; crkSj yksd lsod xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA tSlk fd vfHkdFkuksa ds fooj.k la[;k 01 esa vafdr gSA

vkjksi la[;k ¼2½

;g gS fd mi;qZä dkykof/k ds nkSjku mä Jh vkuUun Lo:i 'kekZ d-fy- us dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 16-12-2009 ftlds vuqlkj vkius vko';d jftLVj la/kkfjr djus dk ,oa vius lhxksa dk dk;Z iwjk djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldh vkius ikyuk ugha dhA vkidk ;g —R; crkSj yksd lsod xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA tSlk fd vfHkdFkuksa ds fooj.k la[;k 02 esa vafdr gSA

vkjksi la[;k ¼3½

vkius dk;kZy; vkns'k Øekad 14 fnukad 22-12-2009 dh ikyuk ughsa dhA vkidk ;g —R; crkSj yksd lsod


Insubordination gS rFkk xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA tSlk fd vfHkdFkuksa ds fooj.k la[;k 03 esa vafdr gSA**

3. Responding to memorandum and charge-sheet, the delinquent submitted his reply and denied all the charges. The reply submitted by the respondent was not found to be satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and consequently a regular disciplinary enquiry was ordered against him. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority himself and in the report the delinquent respondent was indicted for all the three charges. On conclusion of the enquiry, the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the respondent-employee and thereafter vide order dated 10th May 2010, penalty of compulsory retirement from service with forfeiture of wages for the suspension period other than subsistence allowance was inflicted. The disciplinary authority has also allowed three months' salary to the respondent.

4. Being aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 19th of May 2010 and the said appeal was placed before the Appellate Committee of the High Court. The Appellate Committee, after examining the matter in its entirety, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the punishment order and the order of appellate authority, the respondent laid writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned writ Court granted indulgence to the respondent employee by partly allowing the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vinit Mathur, has vehemently argued that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the penalty which was inflicted on the delinquent employee as a consequence of his indictment in the departmental enquiry. While buttressing his submissions with full emphasis, Mr. Mathur has argued that the matter was examined threadbare by the appellate authority also, and therefore, it was not desirable for the learned Single Judge to have interfered with the impugned punishment order. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Mathur has also contended that when the charges were fully established against the delinquent employee, which were