1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2391/2003
(Shyam Lal Vs. State & Anr.)
Date of order : 22.7.2008
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.L. Bhati, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, the petitioner was posted as
Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Raipur District
Bhilwara. At that time, he has forwarded an
application moved by Smt. Anita Vijay with the report
that she has worked as Aanganwadi worker w.e.f.
7.10.991 to 30.6.1992 but her form was rejected by
Regional Dy. Director (Bal Vikas) on the ground that
she has worked for preparing record only and as such
she was not given any employment.
The petitioner was not posted in the
Education Department but he was on deputation in
Mahila & Bal Vikas Department and while working on the
2
post of Project Officer, he has forwarded the
application of Smt. Anita Vijay – wife of the
petitioner himself. A charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 9.8.1993 and allegation was made which
reads as under :
"यह ह क उक श शय मल ल व जय र य
तत ललन बल व स पर य जन अल सह ड
म"खय लय र$र प" म% उक पद प य' त( ह)ए अपन
पत श मलत अलनत व जय आ$रनब ड य' त '
फज अन"भ पम ण पत कदय । इस प उक श
शय मल ल व जय र य न( अपन( पद दर
" पय र
अपन पत श मत अलनत व जय फज अन"भ पम ण
पत कदय ।
अत: उक श शय मल ल व जय र य तत ललन
बल व स पर य जन अल अपन( पद
दर
" पय र अपन पत श मत अलनत व जय
आ$रनब ड य' त ' फज अन"भ पम ण पत ज
न( ( आ प स( आ वपत क य ज त ह इस आ प
व सत6त व ण आ प व ण पत स$खय ए म% रण'त ह
।"
The aforesaid charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and
thereafter, enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer
gave its finding against the petitioner and it was
found that the petitioner is guilty of alleged
misconduct, which is punishable under the CCA Rules,
for which major penalty is required to be inflicted.
The disciplinary authority after considering the
3
entire enquiry report and the reply filed by the
petitioner penalized the petitioner with penalty of
withholding of one grade increment with cumulative
effect vide order dated 25.3.2000. Against the said
order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner
before the Commissioner and Secretary, Secondary
Education. The said appeal was accepted and the
penalty was reduced from withholding of one grade
increment without cumulative effect. Against the said
order, the petitioner also preferred a review
petition, which was also dismissed by the reviewing
authority vide order dated 21.9.2002
I have perused the impugned orders passed by
disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority
and the order of reviewing authority.
Looking to the seriousness of the misconduct
committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to
interfere in this matter. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
arun