@ qod’y C" 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT-BILASPUR!C.G.[ WRIT PETITION N0. 24’éé OF 2004 BETWEEN RAJENDRA SINGH THAKUR AGED— 46 YEARS, avS ‘ SON OF SHRI MANNU SINGH THAKUR, POSTED As— P.T.1., AT- GOVT. GIRLS H.s.SCHOOL, KANKER, RESIDENT OF KANKER, DISTRICT—KANKER (CO) VERSUS PETITIONER 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH — THE SECRETARY ‘ TRIBAL AND SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIWENT MANTRALAY, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL AND SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT, CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPIVIENT, JAGDALPUR. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE- 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF mDIA FOR ISSUANCE'OF WRIT 1N THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, SUITABLE DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS 3,, A ‘, ...... XI-HC—78 w??\\/\E£ Wm @3206 Le E of india, the petitioner hi and propriety of the order dated 15/1; respondent No.2 in exercise of the t Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh’ Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966‘ Learned counsel appearing fo relevant time, the petitioner was work Secondary School, Charama, distriét Easter, (C.G.). He remained absent from his duties from 08/0711 §91 for a Very long period (about E three years). On the aforesaid actE the disciplinary proceeding was started against him and in the sai \disciplinary proceeding, notices f\.. along with charge-sheet Were Ts LLegQagainst the petitioner on HIM/1993. lt is an adrnitted posit n that even Vafter the service of aforesaid notice and the charge-she t, the petitioner did not file any reply to the same and had not artioipated in the proceedings. ‘after the enquiry, the disciplinary ice of the rules} passed the Annexure-P/4). According to the Thereafter enquiry was ordered and authority’ after necessary compliat punishment orde'r’dated 21/06“ 999 i as challenged the legality, validity 2/2003 (Annexure-P/t) passed by lowers conferred for review under ' the petitioner submits that at the ,ing as P.T.i. in Govt. Boys Higher mm (Wu) WWW dermatitis; Wmm I mmdwm esimm 19/01/2oog- Shri RS. Patel learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents, on advance copy. Heard. 2“?“ By the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 oHhe XI-HC 78 mm, m, W WW.? Q‘Qéé m 20w Wwa? (Wu) XI—HC 78 WW 'w?zméémmu am? was (Wm saw a?m ' asnmm Wmm h°>‘ WH1RE~$f3¥WW $aim3mé¥r prerogative to correct all kinds of h dship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of e subordinate courts or tribunals. ln fact, the exercise of the power is estricted to the cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violat or justice. under this Article cannot exercise i n of fundamental principles of law if is aiso to be kept in min that the High Court while acting power as an appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place f that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent n the fact of the record. The reference may also be ma e to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sugarbai M. Sid iq and others Vs. Ramesh S. Hankare reported in (2001) 8 SCC 77 in which the Apex Court has held that in an application under Artic 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to see whether the lower c urt/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether t e impugned order is vitiatedv by procedural irregularity; in other word the court is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-ma mg process only. l they do the duty expected or required‘ot them in a legal manner. lt has also been held that the High Courtls not vested with any unlimited i u g i Applying these principles of la in the present case, l do not find Eany reason to interfere with the rders Passed bV the 'eViewmg a i i authority or the disciplinary autho ty particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner did not turn up even to tile his reply before the disciplinary uthority for two times firstly at the time of issuance of show cause a nitice and secondly at theW z K)” "LA/ XI—HC—78 /wl WWWW @a£.§.. Wm mm (mw mafs'am ”q" N) Sdl- Sum! Kumar Sinh Judge m 29w WWh’ittéim hiaifauamim th imposition of punishment“ The peti‘:ion has no merit and therefore e Same is dismissed at the admission stage itsetf. a