1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL No.1044/1998 BAHADUR SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri S.P. Sharma, for appellant. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. BY THE COURT : (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the appellant under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short 'CCA Rules'). The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on the appellant of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect on the basis of the enquiry report. After unsuccessful Departmental appeal, the appellant filed writ petition under 2 Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned single Bench after meticulously scanned the material on record found no substance in the petition and observed that the enquiry report was not based on some in speculation. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vociferously canvassed that the findings of Disciplinary or Appellate Authorities were not based on any evidence. Nand Lal, Patwari, on whose statement, was relied upon to impose the punishment had animosity with the appellant and he implicated the appellant falsely and judicial review in such a situation is permitted. 4. The scope of judicial review was explained by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s H.C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364). It was indicated that the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. If the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry 3 is accepted as it stands, it will be seen whether from such evidence the impugned conclusion follows or not ? 5. We, in the instant case, cannot reweigh the evidence of Nand Lal, Patwari, and in our opinion, this is not a case where appellant was punished without evidence. 6. Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v/s Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749) again considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of Disciplinary Enquiry and it was held thus : “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the 4 disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 7. Learned Single Bench passed the impugned order in its supervisory jurisdiction. Scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court is very limited. Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (2003) 3 SCC 524) observed as under : “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 5 8. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. (Guman Singh),J. (Shiv Kumar Sharma), J. Chauhan/