1. Challenge to penalty order imposing withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 731
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anand Sharma, J.
Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal W/o Shri Dr. H. Bairwa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical and Health Department - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9834 of 2006
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to the decision-making process. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings based on some evidence, nor can they substitute their view on the quantum of punishment unless it is strikingly disproportionate or shocks the conscience of the court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rule 16 - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings - High Courts cannot act as appellate authorities and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority - Interference is permissible only if the enquiry is conducted by an incompetent authority, there is a violation of natural justice, findings are based on no evidence, or the conclusion is wholly arbitrary and capricious. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Quantum of punishment - Interference in the penalty imposed is warranted only if the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, shocks the conscience of the court, or is vitiated by perversity, illegality, or procedural impropriety; mere harshness is not a ground for judicial interference. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
(C) Reinstatement in service - Reinstatement of an employee following a court direction to consider a representation does not imply condonation of alleged misconduct nor does it preclude the employer from conducting a departmental enquiry for the same period of absence. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A government employee was appointed on probation and subsequently terminated due to willful absence. Following a writ petition, the employee was reinstated. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated under the applicable service rules for the same period of absence, resulting in a penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The employee challenged the penalty as being disproportionate and argued that a second enquiry for the same period of misconduct was impermissible after reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer were supported by evidence on record and were not perverse. The penalty imposed was within the permissible range of administrative discretion and was not shockingly disproportionate.
Issues: Whether the court can interfere with the quantum of punishment in a departmental enquiry under writ jurisdiction and whether reinstatement in service precludes the initiation of subsequent disciplinary proceedings for the same period of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Courts shall not re-appreciate evidence or assess its adequacy unless the finding is based on no evidence. Reinstatement does not absolve an employee of misconduct, and the administrative autonomy of the employer in determining punishment is preserved unless the penalty is strikingly disproportionate.
Result: the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- disciplinary proceedings
-
service law
-
penalty
- withholding increments
-
reinstatement
- subsequent proceedings (Para 7)
-
penalty
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued penalty was excessive, harsh, and disproportionate to misconduct; respondents contended proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court observed that judicial review under Articles 226 is confined to examining decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Courts cannot interfere with quantum of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by perversity, illegality, or procedural impropriety. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as the penalty imposed was not shockingly disproportionate and no procedural impropriety found. (Para 17 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 in disciplinary matters?
Judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process, not the decision itself. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute conclusions. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Can courts interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority?
Courts can interfere only if the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, shockingly disproportionate, or vitiated by perversity, illegality, or procedural impropriety. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
8. Does reinstatement of an employee preclude subsequent disciplinary proceedings for the same misconduct?
No, mere reinstatement does not absolve the employee of misconduct or preclude the department from conducting an inquiry. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 12.02.2002 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The petitioner contends that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is excessive, harsh, and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on probation vide order dated 02.06.1992 on the post of Health Officer pursuant to which the petitioner joined on 08.07.1992. On account of willful absence of the petitioner, during the probation period, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 02.12.1994 with effect from 10.07.1992. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3545/1995 before this Court challenging the termination order. The aforesaid petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.1995 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders thereupon.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition, representation was submitted by the petitioner whereupon she was reinstated back in service vide order dated 22.09.1995. However, by way of issuing a charge-sheet in the year 1998, enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958') was initiated by the respondents against the petitioner alleging the charges of willful absence for the same period for which earlier services of the petitioner were terminated and on filing representation pursuant to order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated back in service. In the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 12.02.2002, whereby penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and the review petition filed by the petitioner before the competent authority has also been dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order suffers from serious illegality as it contains the same charges for which the petitioner has earlier suffered the rigour of termination and no charge-sheet for same period can again be issued against the petitioner. However, this aspect has not been properly considered either by the disciplinary authority or by the reviewing authority. The impugned penalty order is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of the principles of proportionality, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has imposed a harsh and excessive punishment wholly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct. The findings recorded in the enquiry are perverse and based on selective consideration of evidence, while material, exculpatory evidence and the petitioner’s defence have been ignored without assigning cogent reasons. The enquiry proceedings suffer from procedural infirmities, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner, and the punishment imposed may shock the conscience of this Court. The reviewing authority has mechanically affirmed the penalty without independent consideration, thereby rendering the decision-making process flawed and amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 of the Constitution.
4. Per contra, the Respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly untenable, as the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules and in full co
