CW 12500/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12500/09 Rishi Kumar Sharma Versus State &Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 28/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vijay Pathak, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order inflicting penalty of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the period of absence was treated to be dies non vide order Ann.8 dt.19th June, 2009. Petitioner is working as Ayurved Chikitsak and for his long absence from 11th February to 17th October, 1997, earlier inquiry was held by the Director, Ayurved and the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved against him at this stage, it revealed that charge sheet U/r.16 could be issued only by the Department of Personnel. Hence, a charge sheet U/r.16 of CCA Rules, 1958 was served upon the petitioner dt.1st July, 2003 and out of two charges levelled against him, charge no.1 was in respect of his absence for the period from 11th February, 1997 to 17th October, 1997. In the course of inquiry, defence which was CW 12500/09 [2] disclosed by the petitioner was that he had sent his application for extension of medical leave through UPC to the competent authority and since application was never rejected, it could not be considered to be a misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971. The inquiry officer after examining the record, observed that all such medical certificates furnished by him nowhere discloses OPD numbers and there was no record that medical certificates were received in the office but since the concerned LDC died it could not be proved and no satisfactory evidence came on record by which it could be inferred that he was not well for which he sent application, finally held the charge no.1 proved against him and after copy of inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, the disciplinary authority examined the record and the submission of petitioner in detail in its order, finally agreed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer and while holding him guilty, punished with the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. CW 12500/09 [3] Counsel for petitioner submits that merely because medical certificates through UPC furnished by him does not bear OPD numbers. It cannot be inferred that certificates were not issued by the competent authority and once he was on medical leave, it cannot be considered to be wilful absence for which he was charge sheeted and apart from it, inquiry held by the Department of Ayurved for self-same charge was not found proved against him and in such circumstances, what has been recorded by the inquiry officer in its report and affirmed by the disciplinary authority while inflicting penalty, is not legally sustainable, requires interference by this Court. So far as submission made with respect to inquiry held at the level of department is concerned, petitioner being a State level officer, inquiry for major penalty could be initiated only by the Department of Personnel. As such, what has been examined and observed in the report furnished at the level of department will not be of any significance. CW 12500/09 [4] A regular charge sheet was served upon the petitioner U/r.16 of CCA Rules by the Department of Personnel which alone holds competence for a State Cadre Officer and independent inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer deputed by the disciplinary authority to examine the record and finding was recorded holding that certificate furnished by the petitioner in absence of bearing OPD numbers, certainly cannot be taken note of and moreso, when the petitioner himself was Ayurved Chikitsak, certainly was aware of the procedure which has to be followed in regard to medical certificates to be furnished as alleged by him and looking to his long absence, no other material came on record by which the inquiry officer could be satisfied that he was unwell for the period for which he was served with the charge of absence from duty. The disciplinary authority has also examined his submission in detail as required U/r.16(9) of the Rules, 1958 and after appreciation recorded its independent finding holding him guilty. It is not the case of the petitioner that the procedure provided U/r.16 of the Rules, 1958 has CW 12500/09 [5] not been followed or there is any violation of principles of natural justice or a reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to him during the course of inquiry. This court is not sitting as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the finding which has been recorded by the disciplinary authority in its order impugned and no perversity has been pointed out by the Counsel for petitioner in the order impugned inflicting penalty. This court finds no infirmity in the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA12500CW09 28-10.doc