1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

SB Civil Writ Petition No.11936/2012

Chhitar Mal Dariya versus State of Rajasthan & ors

21.9.2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

Mr HP Singh – for petitioner

BY THE COURT:

The petitioner has challenged order of punishment

dated 30.8.2011 at Annexure-16 so as the order dated 13.7.2012 at

Annexure-17.

The petitioner was served with the charge sheet and

on enquiry, charge was found proved. He was punished by the

disciplinary authority. On appeal preferred by the petitioner,

punishment was reduced by the appellate authority vide order

dated 30.8.2011.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was

no shortage of liquor so as to hold petitioner to be guilty for the

charges levelled against him. In fact, he was not working on the

post and place at the relevant time thus charges were incorrectly

2

held proved. The order of punishment is thus liable to be set aside

so as the consequential order quantifying the amount of recovery

from the petitioner. It is also stated that the amount of 50% of the

salary would be withheld towards recoverable amount and if the

entire amount is not recovered, then to recover it from retiral

benefits which is illegal.

I have considered submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the record.

Two charge sheets were served to the petitioner

containing different charges. The enquiry was held and completed

wherein charges were found proved. The petitioner was inflicted

punishment of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect

for first case, however, it was interfered with by the appellate

authority and punishment was reduced to stoppage of one annual

grade increment without cumulative effect. The directions for

recovery of the amount of loss is however maintained. In the

second charge sheet also, punishment was reduced by making it

stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

The finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer is

not perverse so as to call for interference. After marshalling the

evidence, impugned orders have been passed by the disciplinary

3

authority and appellate authority, taking a lenient view reduced

the punishment. The appellate order was passed on 30.8.2011

wherein petition has been filed on 3.8.2012, knowing it well that

amount of loss would be recoverable from the petitioner. I do not

find any illegality in the impugned orders. The loss was ordered to

be recovered and now it has been quantified. The only argument

that petitioner was not working on the post and place at the

relevant time is not supported by material.

Looking to over all facts of the case, I do not find any

illegality therein. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

(MN BHANDARI), J.

bnsharma

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been

incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

(BN Sharma)

PS-cum-JW