1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6724/2002 (R.K. Punia Versus State of Rajasthan & Another) Date of Order :: 15th April, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Sushma Sharma for the petitioner Mr. S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and after affording proper opportunity, a penalty order was passed vide order dated 19th January, 1998 (Annexure-3) against the petitioner, whereby his two annual grade increments without cumulative effect were withheld. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 5th January, 2001 (Annexure-5). Thereafter the petitioner preferred review petition, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24th November, 2001 (Annexure-7). 3. The submission of learned counsel for 2 the petitioner is that the respondents committed an illegality in passing the impugned order of penalty against the petitioner and the order imposing penalty is liable to be quashed by this Court. 4. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, wherein it has been contended that the order was passed after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner and the said order is passed on some reasonings. Moreso, the said order has also bee examined by the appellate and review authority and the scope to interfere in the said order by this court under Article 227 is very limited, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of leaned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned order (Annexure-3) dated 19th January, 1998 and the subsequent orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the review authority and after considering the same, I find that the order (Annexure-3) has been passed after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner and I do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice or jurisdictional error in the same. It is 3 correct that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is very limited. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another – AIR 1975 SC 1297, while considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. 4 It cannot correct mere errors of fact by re- appreciating evidence. 7. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/-