1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. <><> ASI P.S. Jhala Vs. Union of India & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 112/2009. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4516/2004. Date of Order :::: 18th December 2010. PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. R.S. Shekhawat for the appellant. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 26.09.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner- appellant against the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings whereby the petitioner-appellant was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The appellant joined the services in the Central Industrial Security Force on the post of Security Guard in the year 1971 and was ultimately promoted to the post of ASI. On 23.09.2009, he was posted at Chanderiya Lead Zinc Smelter, Chittorgarh and was detailed for the work of loading 2 supervision. It was alleged that the appellant failed to supervise the loading on a truck bearing registration number RJ-27 G 3268 and, in the result, one motor was found loaded in excess that was recovered at the main gate during checking of the vehicle. It was further alleged that he failed to sign the material gate pass in token of having supervised the loading. It was yet further alleged that the appellant was a habitual offender with the consistent bad service record where 3 major and 8 minor punishments had already been awarded to him. In the Departmental Enquiry conducted on the allegations aforesaid, the appellant was served with the charge-sheet and was given due opportunity to defend himself and to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved and forwarded the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority who, in turn, supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the appellant and afforded him opportunity to make representation. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority by its impugned order dated 24.11.2001, awarded the appellant punishment of compulsory retirement from service while leaving him eligible to receive pension and gratuity in accordance with the rules. The appeal taken by the appellant was considered and dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 13.02.2002 after finding no procedural or legal infirmity in the proceedings. The revision petition preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority on 13.02.2004. 3 Seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner-appellant in the writ petition that the third charge related to his previous conduct for which he had already been punished and any punishment on that basis amounted to double jeopardy. It was also submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was too harsh and the alleged delinquency was not of that seriousness to warrant such harsh punishment, which was stigmatic in character too. The learned Single Judge referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble supreme Court including those in the cases of Government of Tamilnadu & Anr. Vs. A.Rajapandian : (1995) 1 SCC 216 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.C. Chaturvedi : (1995) 6 SCC 750 on the scope of judicial review; and found no case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal. It is contended that the protection of the Court ought to have been extended to the appellant who was subjected to regular harassment due to vindictive attitude of certain authorities. It is submitted that the compulsory retirement as punishment had been too harsh and stigmatic in character apart from causing financial losses to the appellant. It is submitted that unceremonial removal of the appellant after 31 years of service was not justified and hence, the matter calls for interference. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in this intra-court appeal. 4 It had been a case of allegations of gross dereliction from duty where the appellant failed to carry out the requisite supervision and then, did not sign the material gate pass. The Inquiry Officer examined the matter in detail and found the charges proved. It is indisputably available on record that the appellant in the past had been awarded 3 major and 8 minor punishments. In the given set of facts and circumstances, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority has yet taken a balanced view of the matter and awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service while leaving the appellant eligible for proportionate pension and gratuity in accordance with the rules. The matter has further been thoroughly examined by the Appellate Authority and so also the Revisional Authority. We are unable to find any infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings; and, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (C.M.TOTLA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/