Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.

ORDER :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality, validity and propriety of order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, whereby penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-II, Jaipur, whereby although while exercising appellate powers, penalty of withholding three annual grade increments imposed by the disciplinary authority has been reduced to penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, yet he failed to exonerate the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1993, thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Inspector and was posted as Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Behror, District Alwar, for a period between 2003-06. While, the petitioner was posted as S.H.O., Police Station Behror, a deceased's Mrig report was received at Police Station Behror from Police Station Moti Dungari, Jaipur. Since, the deceased was resident of area under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Behror, Mrig report was registered under Section 174 IPC at Police Station, Behror. Alleging irregularities and illegalities in the investigation conducted by the Police Station Behror, in respect of Mrig report, charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner on 03.02.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that at the time when charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, S.P., Alwar, the petitioner was posted in District Dausa, therefore, in the light of notification dated 17.10.1986 issued by the State Government, only S.P., Dausa could have issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and S.P., Alwar had got no authority to issue such charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet was based upon so many documents mentioned therein, yet despite specific demand raised by the petitioner either for furnishing copy of the charge-sheet, or for permitting inspection of record by the petitioner, such opportunity was not granted to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charge-sheet was in fact issued to the petitioner for the acts and omissions, which were not part of duty of S.H.O., and were relating to the duty of Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at S.H.O. Behror. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to investigation conducted in the year 2003-04, charge-sheet was issued with a delay of around 3 years, which has also caused prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner as well as the relevant record in objective manner, and penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner with pre-occupied mind and looking to the nature of misconduct assigned in the charge-sheet, such penalty was harsh and excessive.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved by order dated 07.11.2008, the petitioner filed appeal