Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India And Ors vs Vishwanath Kashyap And Anr on 3 December, 2013
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6021/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vishwanath Kashyap & Anr. Date : 03.12.2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. P.C. Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. Vibhor Sharma, for respondent.
Instant petition is directed against order of the Tribunal dt.13.01.2011 whereby the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority & modified punishment of the appellate authority was set aside on merits.
The brief facts which have been noticed by the Tribunal in its order impugned are that the respondent initially joined service as Section Engineer and while posted as Inspector (Vigilance), during the period from March,1993-October,1994 some alleged delinquency might have been committed by him and after a lapse of six years, a charge-sheet u/R 9 of the Disciplinary Rules,1996 dt.24.02.2000 was served upon the delinquent respondent and in all six charges were levelled against him but the Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry didn't find any of the charge proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority was disagreed with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and served him a note of disagreement in respect of each charge & that was noticed & discussed by the Tribunal under order impugned and recorded a finding that the note of disagreement does not find support from any tangible evidence on record and finally arrived to a conclusion that the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent respondent based on the note of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly set aside the order of punishment dt.17.12.2005 & so also the order of appellate authority dt.17.05.2006 and obviously when the punishment order was set aside the delinquent was entitled for all the consequential benefits flowing thereof.
Counsel for petitioner has tried to persuade this Court that the finding which the Tribunal has recorded in appreciation of the charge & the note of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable and being perverse requires interference by this Court.
We make it clear that this Court is not sitting over the order of the Tribunal as Appellate Authority and as regards the finding of fact which has been recorded by the Tribunal is based on due appreciation of record of the disciplinary enquiry and as already observed, the learned Tribunal has examined extensively the finding of the enquiry officer in reference to each charge and the note of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority and recorded finding of fact & arrived to a conclusion that there was no tangible evidence on record which could support the note of disagreement recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of each charge and once there is finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in our considered view that does not require interference, more so when this Court is not sitting as Court of Appeal for re-appreciation of the evidence examined & affirmed by the Tribunal and the delinquent is entitled for consequential benefits flowing thereof and this what the Tribunal observed in its order impugned and we do not find any apparent error in the order of the Tribunal which may require interference.
Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
(J.K. Ranka),J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-PA/p.3 6021cw11Dec03FnlDsps(D15).sxw Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PAJW