IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 153 of 2002 MOHAMMED MUSTAFA ANSARI V/S HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & ORS Mr. PS BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. GR PUNIA, for the respondent Date of Order : 14.11.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GK VYAS,J. ORDER ----- The petitioner by this petition seeks to challenge the order Annexure-13, and seeks exoneration from all the charges leveled against him vide charge-sheet Annexure-3. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner was served with a memorandum Annexure-1 dt. 23.6.1999, about his misconduct, to which he replied vide Annexure-2, and it appears, that being not satisfied with the reply, he was served with the charge-sheet and memorandum Annexure-3 dt. 13.12.99, to which he again submitted reply, denying the charges. Thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report, after holding regular and detailed enquiry. The enquiry report is produced as Annexure-8. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority gave notice to the petitioner, enclosing therewith the enquiry report, and proposing the punishment to which he submitted a representation Annexure- 9. The petitioner was also given opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority, and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed the order Annexure-11, finding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges, and did not find guilty of some of the allegations, and imposed penalty of withholding of five grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner aggrieved thereof filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, vide Annexure-12. The Appellate Authority also gave opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as prayed for by him, and partly allowed the appeal vide Annexure-13, reducing the penalty, from withholding of five grade increments with cumulative effect, to withholding of three grade increments with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority after not only hearing the petitioner, but also after scanning through the entire record, and the appeal, concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, it appears that the Appellate Authority was inclined to bear benevolence, and reduced the quantum of punishment, as above. Assailing the impugned order Annexure-13, it was mainly submitted, that there is no evidence on record to show, that the petitioner was posted as private secretary, and did not discharge duties as private secretary, and that there is no evidence about his having done any act of 2 insubordination, or having denied to attend the residence of Hon'ble the Judge concerned, for taking dictation of the judgment etc. According to the learned counsel, that being the factual position, the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner, by the two learned authorities below, is based on absolutely no evidence, and is required to be set aside. We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the material available on record of this writ. It is true that the petitioner was not formally given appointment order, appointing him on the post of Private Secretary, but then, this is not the end of the matter, inasmuch as, as the things have come on record, that it was on account of the regular private secretary attached with the Hon'ble Judge having proceeded on leave on medical ground, the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties. A look at the reply to the charge sheet filed by the petitioner, being Annexure-4, does show, that it is not in dispute, that the petitioner worked with the Hon'ble Justice concerned, with whom he was deputed during the leave period of Shri R.C. Mundra from 13.4.99 to 22.5.1999. A look at the reply further shows that the petitioner has categorically pleaded, that from 13.4.99 to 22.5.99 the petitioner was working as relieving hand vice Shri R.C. Mundra, but had not been appointed as private secretary as 3 such, and has further pleaded that had he been appointed as private secretary, his pay would have been enhanced for that period, which is not the case, and no order to that effect came to be passed, and then, he has sought to plead, that he was working in the capacity as senior personal assistant as such in place of Shri R.C. Mundra, and nothing more than that. Thus the petitioner has only joined issue about other aspects. It is also not in dispute that Shri Mundra was attached with the Hon'ble Judge as private secretary. In our view, thus this is a very clear, and categoric admission about the petitioner, at the relevant time being working in place of Shri R.C. Mundra, and the obvious conclusion is, that when on account of long absence of the private secretary, who had proceeded on leave, and the petitioner was deputed to discharge those duties, in such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to take the contention, as taken. Then, so far as the other delinquencies about having declined to attend the residence of Hon'ble Judge is concerned, we have gone through the entire evidence, and find, that there is legally admissible evidence on record to substantiate the charge, and that evidence has been considered by the two learned authorities below. We are afraid, it is not open to us, exercising our certiorari jurisdiction, to re-appreciate the evidence over again as an original authority, much less to go into the sufficiency 4 or reliability of the evidence and material available on record. Obviously we have gone on the aspect, as to whether the findings are based on evidence, or not, and we find, that the findings are based on evidence. That being the position, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition thus has no force, and the same is dismissed. ( GK VYAS ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/ 5