SBCWP NO.3572/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3572/1997. Shri Pal Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Order:- February 18, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria on behalf of Miss Raj Sharma, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25/8/1993 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect under disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and the order dated 15/4/1995 by which his review petition filed was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge against the petitioner is only technical which cannot be proved and it was never his intention to defraud the government by claiming travelling allowance while he was discharging duty on that day. Learned counsel submitted that this discrepancy arose because of the gap of communication between the petitioner and his SBCWP NO.3572/97. 2 subordinate who prepared the bill. Learned counsel submitted that for a delinquency of this nature, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect cannot be justified. It was submitted that by the time, petitioner was not able to keep his time of departure while preparing his bill of travelling allowance and therefore even if some bonafide mistake was committed, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was wholly unjustified. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that charge against the petitioner was amply proved that he had undertaken the registration work as Sub-Registrar on 28/1/1985, 9/4/1985 and 16/1/1986 and on these very days he has also claimed Travelling Allowance. It was for the petitioner to prove that he left the headquarter after office hours and/or that on that day he was on leave of half day. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner therefore in the circumstances, penalty which has been imposed upon the petitioner is fully justified. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the submission that the discrepancy arise because of some gap of communication between petitioner and his subordinate staff, cannot be a reason to justify claim Travelling Allowance for the days when petitioner SBCWP NO.3572/97. 3 had done the registration work as Sub-Registrar. In any case, disciplinary authority has proceeded against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and has awarded minor penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. It is not a case where there was no evidence against him. Once there was some evidence to sustain the finding on the charges, as recorded by the enquiry officer and upheld by the disciplinary authority, this Court cannot in exercise of powers of judicial review interfere in the matters like the present one. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil