1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Bhagwan Lal Meena. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 371/2007 ... Date of Order: February 26, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. S.N. Trivedi, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 13-4-2001 (Annx.1), 19-10-2002 (Annx.5) and 15.3.2004 (Annx.7) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, the petitioner came with the case that while undergoing the training of Constable at the Rajasthan Police Academy, Jaipur from 6-12- 1999, on 20-1-2000, the petitioner suddenly fell ill and had to 2 undergo the treatment and after treatment, he resumed the training on 11-7-2000 in the Office of the respondent No.4, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. He was sent to undergo the remaining training on 12-7-2000 and and returned to the office of the respondent No. 4 on 14-7-2000 as he had completed the maximum part of his training. On 3-10-2000, a charge sheet under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1958 (for short, “the CCA Rules” hereinafter) was issued, the inquiry was conducted and without considering the reply to the charge sheet and the medical certificates, the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order dated 13-4-2001 (Annx.1) removed the petitioner from service. The appeal against that order stood dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order Annx.5 dated 19-10- 2002 and the review petition stood dismissed vide impugned order dated 15-3-2004 (Annx.7). Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the inquiry report and the impugned orders. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned orders, the grounds and defence taken by the petitioner have not been considered in right perspective and the review petition has been dismissed by an authority which is not competent to pass the order on the review petition. 3 From the inquiry report, it reveals that the petitioner tried to get the leave sanction and on being refused, he, without informing the concerned Authority at the training centre, left the place and remained absent from training from 20-1-2000 to 10.7.2000 and on 11-7-2000, he joined the duty in the office of the respondent No.4 instead of joining at the training centre and thereafter on being asked to report at the training centre on 12- 7-2000, he did not join the training and returned on 14.7.2000 on the pretext that he had completed most of the training period. The inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, by a detailed and speaking order Annx.4 dated 13-4-2001, concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed the punishment of removal. The Appellate Authority, vide impugned order Annx.5 dated 19-10- 2002 concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal. The Reviewing Authority, did not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and consequently dismissed the review petition vide impugned order Annx.7 dated 15-3-2004. On careful perusal of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, I do not find any error, illegality, irregularity or perversity therein. 4 Even otherwise, the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings are not within the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until and unless there is a error, illegality or perversity on the face of the record. The petitioner could not point out any such error, illegality or perversity therein. So far as the challenge to the order Annx.7 dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Reviewing Authority on the ground of its incompetency is concerned, from a bare perusal of this order, it is clear that there is mention of “By order” at the bottom of the impugned order Annx.7, which means that the order has been passed by His Excellency the Governor of the State of Rajasthan and the last three lines of this order make a clear narration to this effect. The petitioner was undergoing the training of police constable. On being refused the leave, he left the training centre and remained absent from the training for 173 days and thereafter, instead of joining the training, he resumed his duty in the office of the respondent No.4 and despite being directed to complete the training, he did not went to the training centre on the pretext that he has completed maximum period of training. Thus, looking to the serious nature of delinquency, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the delinquency. 5 In this view of the matter, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition lacks merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs