1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 699 of 1997 SATYAVRAT V/S STATE & ORS Mr. DK PARIHAR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. VINIT SANADHYA for Mr. MANISH SHISHODIA, for the respondent Date of Order : 25.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 28.3.1997 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner appellant by writ petition sought to challenge the order of termination passed consequent upon a departmental enquiry after issuance of proper charge sheet which termination order had been affirmed by the education departmental higher authorities. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet comprising various charges which include charges of misbehaviour with Sahayak Mukhadhisthata Gurukul, and physical manhandling and beating given to Shri Shivlal Tripathi, and thus having violated the discipline, and peaceful atmosphere of the institution. 2 The petitioner was terminated from services way back on 15.4.86. Various grounds were taken in the writ petition seeking to challenge the termination but then substantially grounds were on merits of the finding of the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that there is no jurisdictional error in the order, the termination is proper. It was also found that after termination the petitioner was gainfully employed, and over and above all this it was also found that the petitioner has already reached the superannuation age way back on 31.3.95 itself, therefore, interference was declined. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, and going through the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, and the findings recorded therein in conjunction with the other material produced by the appellant before the learned Single Bench, in our view, it cannot be said that the findings are not based on evidence, or are perverse. Enquiry Officer has considered the admissions of the appellant comprised in the apology, and the order whereby the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case for the offence under Section 323 and 341 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise is also available which 3 obviously shows that the appellant did give beating, and did manhandle. Respondents have also produced injury report of Shivlal as Annexure R/3. Thus, no interference is required in the finding of guilt. Then, looking to the nature of delinquency, in the institution, which is a educational institution, the termination order is rather most appropriate punishment awarded. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had already reached the age of superannuation way back on 31.3.1995. In these circumstances, in our view, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was in error in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal thus has no force, and the same is hereby dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/