1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4141/2002. : : Ram Ratan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 26.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Rajendra Gupta for Mr.S.K.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge order of penalty dated 4.3.1999 by which two grade increments of the petitioner were withheld without cumulative effect and order dated 4.4.2001 whereby that appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in fact the petitioner was made Incharge of the Examination Center at a time when the teachers of Education Department were on strike and the examination was conducted with the help of conductors from RSRTC. The charges have wrongly been shown against him that he was not found available at the examination center at 2 8.05 am on 20.4.1998 whereas the fact was that at that time the petitioner had gone to the police station to lodge First Information Report about the case of unfair means which the Flying Squad had caught on previous day i.e. 18.4.1998. It was argued that there was no electricity supply during last two days because of that fact the FIR could not be lodged on the previous day. The other charge was that the petitioner could not ensure proper sitting arrangement and also the arrangement for water and electricity, also could not be proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel cited letter dated 31.3.1998 written by the Cashier of the school to the Headmaster informing that arrangement for drinking water has properly been made. He also relied on the letter dated 31.3.1998, which was written by UDC of the school that adequate sitting arrangements have been made. Learned counsel submitted that disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have not applied their mind, therefore, impugned orders be set and aside. It is also argued that disciplinary authority has taken influence from the letter dated 5.3.1998 written by District Collector to Secretary of Education Department complaining that the petitioner was not corporating during the examination. This was an illegality because the petitioner was not afforded any 3 opportunity to give his view point on this. Shri Hemant Gupta, Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that in view of the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect cannot be said either disproportionate or either excessive. In fact, the petitioner in reply to the notice has stated that he returned to the school from police station at 8.30 am and the examination commenced at 7.30 am. When the petitioner was Incharge of the Examination Center, he was required to be present well before start of the examination. Facts aforesaid clearly show that when the teachers were on strike, the petitioner who was Principal of the another school had rather much more responsibility to be vigilant and careful about the efficient conduct of the examination. Even if Flying Squad discovered the case of unfair means previous day, the time chosen by the petitioner to go to the police station to lodge first information report cannot be appreciated. His prime duty was to ensure that examination was started at the scheduled time and for that he was required to be present at the examination center not only to arrangements but also to ensure that there was no 4 mismanagement and that students attempted their examination papers in an orderly manner. Whether or not, proper sitting arrangement or water or electricity arrangement was also of the obligation of the petitioner. Satisfaction of the respondents and the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on that aspect cannot be interfered by this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any extraneous consideration. Mere reference to the letter written to the Education Secretary complaining about non-corporation of the petitioner does not vitiate the impugned orders. That only shows that the action was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the Collector. I thus do not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.40.