Dismissed

Hari Singh Meena S/O Shri Kalwa Ram Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2023SAW/1057/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a D.B. Special Appeal challenging a dismissed writ petition against imposition of a stoppage of increment penalty, the Bench held that absent violation of natural justice or exercise of mala fide power, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority stand affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Hari Singh Meena S/O Shri Kalwa Ram Meena Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1057/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7856/2016

¶5

Hari Singh Meena S/o Shri Kalwa Ram Meena, R/o H. No. 75, Gautam Colony, Swai Madhopur, Presently Posted As Executive Engineer, At Pwd Circle, Sawai Madhopur.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Work Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Department Of Personnel (K-3/Enquiry), Through Deputy Secretary To Government, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

18/08/2023

¶15

Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

Though, prayer made for condoning the delay is opposed by the State, taking into consideration the short period of delay in filing the appeal, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

Application No.127/2022 is allowed.

¶18

This special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby

¶19

[SAW-1057/2019]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

the writ petition filed against imposition of the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect, was dismissed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the Disciplinary Authority while deciding the plea disagreed with the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and did not properly appreciate the background in which letter 11.09.2009 was written.

¶23

He would submit that the extraordinary circumstances in which the letter dated 11.09.2009 came to be submitted by the petitioner were an important aspect for appreciating the factual aspects of the case.

¶24

The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant are in the nature of seeking indulgence of this Court as an Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence on record rather than a case of being violation of the principles of natural justice or absence of the jurisdiction or malafide exercise of power.

¶25

It is well settled that in the absence of there being violation of the principles of natural justice, malafide exercise of power or absence of the jurisdiction, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority based on some evidence is not liable to be interfered with.

¶26

A case of perversity in the sense that some important material or oral documentary evidence was not taken into consideration, is not a case here. It is also not a case of no evidence.

¶27

The appellant having admitted that he issued letter dated 11.09.2009, attempt to wriggle out of the same on the basis of

¶28

[SAW-1057/2019]

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

certain stated circumstances, is only a matter of appreciation of oral/documentary evidence and nothing more.

¶31

We also find that it is not a case of extreme penalty.

¶32

A penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed therefore, no case is made out.

¶33

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶35

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶36

AARZOO ARORA /56

Hari Singh Meena S/O Shri Kalwa Ram Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh Meena S/O Shri Kalwa Ram Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Sharma Son of Shri Balkishan Sharma, Vs Smt. Usha Sharma

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Mayank Vaishnav Son of Shri Hemraj Vaishnav

Rampal Sharma S/O Shri Roodmal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Balua Ram Vaishnav Son of Shri Battu Ram Vs Shri Ankit Kumar Singh

Devaram S/O Laduram Vs Smt. Usha Sharma

Vikram Singh S/O Shri Bhonri Lal Gurjar Vs Smt. Usha Sharma