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 comp