1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2532/2010 Poona Ram vs Chairman, RSRTC & Ors. Date of Order: 26.3.2010. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. RS Choudhary for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority dated 15.2.2010 (Annex.5). According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was not available on duty because he was taken in custody by the police for interrogation and because of that event, he fell ill and he has been admitted in hospital then again petitioner when went to join the duties, again police took the petitioner for interrogation. These facts were brought to the notice of the concerned authority in time and the inquiry officer found petitioner not guilty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer and and proceeded absolutely in illegal manner. It is submitted that disciplinary authority observed that the petitioner since fell ill on 2.3.2006 then he should have produced the medical certificate of 2.3.2006 itself. In view of the this fact the finding of the disciplinary authority deserves to be set aside as the petitioner who was sick on 2.3.2006 could not have submitted the medical certificate on the same day. It is also submitted that in view of the 2 cogent reasons given in the inquiry report, there was no reason for disagreement for the disciplinary authority. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given by the disciplinary authority. It appears from the facts mentioned in the order impugned itself that all the pleas of the petitioner has been considered and the plea of the petitioner has not been believed and the disciplinary authority held the medical certificate not trustworthy after taking note of the fact that medical certificate was produced delayed on 25.3.2006, whereas it could have been produced at earlier point of time also. The evidence which was produced by the petitioner has been considered and has been discarded. It is not a case where the disciplinary authority has not considered the evidence produced by the petitioner. It is also clear that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not as of the appellate authority. However, looking to the facts of the case, I do not find that the disciplinary authority has committed any error in arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-