1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 13.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.K Mathur, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Facts of the case are that the petitioner in a departmental enquiry held against one Shanti Lal Jain, APP-2, Kherwar, stated that said Shanti Lal Jain used to demand money from police for submitting challan in the Court. The detail statement gave complete facts how the said Shanti Lal Jain was working. In the regular enquiry under Rule 16 (Annex.7), the petitioner did not support the allegations. Then he was confronted with his earlier statement. When confronted, he admitted 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. that in Annex.16 (his earlier statement), he gave statement 'C to D', however, so far as the statement recorded at 'E to F', he stated that those statements either were wrongly recorded or he himself gave wrong statement. In view of this, the petitioner faced the charge of contradicting his own statement in the departmental enquiry resulting into exoneration of said Shanti Lal and he faced the enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. The petitioner was found guilty and he has been punished with stoppage of 2 annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The appellate authority vide order dated 26.11.2005 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Then review petition was filed which too was dismissed as conveyed vide communication dated 28.8.2008 (Annex.8). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly the petitioner did not retracted his earlier statement and secondly, it was recorded in the preliminary enquiry held for the charge levelled against another person i.e. Shanti Lal Jain could not have been made the basis for 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. proceeding against the petitioner and thirdly, after seven years, when the petitioner was examined, he could not remember the statement and when he was confronted with the earlier statement, he admitted that he gave statement 'C to D' which is clear allegation of demanding money by said Shanti Lal Jain. It is also submitted that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a reasoned order and no finding has been recorded against the petitioner of taking side of Shanti Lal Jain because the petitioner could not give details of demanding money by Shanti Lal for the particular cases. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record which includes the earlier statement of the petitioner (Annex.1) wherein several allegations have been levelled against said Shanti Lal Jain by the petitioner in detail and particularly, the allegation levelled at 'E to F' in Annex.1 are very important and relevant and serious allegations against said Shanti Lal Jain. The petitioner was charged with 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. only one allegation that he to save Shanti Lal Jain turned round from his earlier statement. The petitioner in his statement Annex.2 very specifically stated that so far as statements 'E to F' in Annex.16 are concerned, those have been either recorded wrongly or he himself gave wrong statement. In view of the above, if in the departmental enquiry under Rule 17, the net conclusion of the disciplinary authority is that he retracted from his earlier statement, then this finding of fact has been recorded in the order specifically and on the basis of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner's contention that the statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry of Shanti Lal Jain could not have been the basis for proceeding against the petitioner is absolutely misplaced argument because of the reason that if a person gives statement resulting into taking action by the department and that is not supported by the employee himself by saying that he did not give statement, then that can be the foundation and because of the evidence given by the employee, the 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2009 Ganesh Lal. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. department proceeded to hold enquiry and the enquiry frustrated because of the reason that the same employee did not support the department and admitted that even statement given by him may be wrong. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya