IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 358 of 1997 HAKIMMUDIN V/S STATE OF RAJ. Mr. BN KALLA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. B.L.BHATI, Dy. G.A. Date of Order : 23.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal is filed by the appellant, seeking challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. Appellant was served with a charge-sheet, and enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred-to as “the Rules”, was conducted for various charges, and after completion of due enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order Annex.4 dated 1.2.1993, imposed penalty of reduction in rank, by fixing him at the minimum of the pay scale, in which, he was posted, and period of absence, which was the subject matter of charge, was directed to be treated as leave without pay. An appeal against this order was filed, which was dismissed, by the appellate authority, being the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 23.7.1993, Annex.7. Learned Single Judge found, that the appellant has not been able to establish, that the allegation of fabrication of record, and late production of record, relating to unauthorized documentation, was not correct, so also, the finding, about his remaining absent without leave, was not successfully assailed. Then, it was found, that this court cannot go into the sufficiency of the punishment awarded, and also, did not feel persuaded, that the findings of the enquiry officer, or the appellate authority, are vitiated on any count, thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that the appellate authority has not given a speaking order, and has not considered the 2 grounds, taken in the appeal. We have examined the memo of appeal, produced by the appellant as Annex.5, so also the order of the appellate authority, being Annex.7. In our view, the appellate authority has given detailed findings charge-wise, and we have examined the entire material on record as well. It has, rather, been noticed, that it was only after the application for medical leave was refused, that the appellant obtained medical certificate, and produced, so as to frustrate the constitution of the medical board. Likewise, it was also found, that despite entries in the diary being made, the same were clearly subsequently manipulated. Likewise, the findings, on other charges, have also been considered. We have examined the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, whereunder, under sub-rule (iv), this is one of the punishments, permissible to be imposed, and the learned authorities below, despite serious charges proved against the delinquent, instead of imposing a capital penalty, have already taken a very lenient view, which does not require any further interference by this court in appeal. 3 The appeal, thus, has no force and is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. Rankawat JK,PS 4