CW 2746/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2746/10 Jagdish Prasad Raiger Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 25/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Satya Pal Chandoliya, for petitioner *** Petitioner is holding the post of Deputy Jailor and for alleged incidence of 19th May, 2004 one prisoner namely; Surendra Singh being convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC in judicial custody committed suicide. Petitioner was served with a notice U/r.17 of CCA Rules vide order dt.24th March, 2006 where allegations were levelled against him that on 19th May, 2004 one prisoner convicted u/s.302 IPC [Narendra Singh] committed suicide and the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties and violated Part 8 Sec.9 & Rule 146 & 164(C) of Rajasthan Prisoner Rules, 1951. The disciplinary authority after taking his reply into consideration held him guilty and punished with the penalty of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dt.24th July, 2006 – against which he preferred appeal. The appellate authority upheld the guilt, but converted the punishment from one annual grade increment without cumulative effect to penalty of censure CW 2746/10 [2] vide order dt.15th February, 2008 and the review which he preferred was also rejected by a detail order on 26th August, 2009. Counsel for petitioner submits that charge levelled against the petitioner was totally vague and he was not negligent in discharge of his duties and finding which has been recorded, is not supported by material on record. Submission made is without merit for the reason that the disciplinary/appellate & reviewing authority has examined record of inquiry and held the petitioner to be guilty. At the same time, the appellate authority while upholding guilt interfered in the final punishment and converted from one annual grade increment without cumulative effect to penalty of censure and this Court is not sitting as court of appeal to re-appreciate the finding which has been recorded by the authority competent under CCA Rules, 1958. From the material which has been placed on record, no inference can be drawn that the finding which has been recorded in any manner is perverse, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition is without merit and accordingly, dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2746CW10 25-2.doc