1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Raja Ram. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1103/2006 ... Date of Order: February 27, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders Annx.7 dated 22-12-2000, Annx.9 dated 28-5-2003 and Annx.10 dated 23-12-2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that while working as the Patwari at Parwar Circle, Baldhra, tehsil Ahore, district Jalore, a charge sheet dated 15-9-2000 (Annx.1) under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the CCA Rules” hereinafter) was issued to him to the effect that despite being informed by the Tehsildar, Ahore, he did not attend the camp held at the 2 headquarter Chandrai for redressal of of public grievances and development. After holding an inquiry and considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order Annx.7 dated 22-12-2000 held the petitioner guilty of the delinquency and imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. An appeal against the order Annx.7 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order Annx.9 dated 28-5-2003 and so also the review petition stood dismissed vide impugned order Annx.10 dated 23-12-2005. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the orders impugned as also the material available on record. The petitioner could not point out any error, illegality or irregularity in the procedure holding/condutng the inquiry and in arriving at the conclusion thereof vide orders impugned. He has come with the defence that on account of non-availability of news paper(s) at village Waldara, he could not know about the changed date of the camp and discharged the duty at his headquarter, meaning thereby that he was well informed about the earlier date of the camp. If any change had been made therein, it was his duty to keep the ready information about the changed date of the camp. Even otherwise, such a plea is not probable and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary 3 Authority as also the Appellate and Reviewing Authorites did not accept the same. After going through the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders, which otherwise also, being administrative orders in disciplinary proceedings, do not come within the scope of interference until and unless some gross irregularity, illegality or perversity is shown therein. The petitioner could not point out any of them and hence no case for interference in the impugned orders is made out. So far as penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect are concerned, looking to the delinquency, the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to the delinquency. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs