{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.523/2010 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment : 6.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.3635/2010 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 3.5.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. { 2 } 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in consequence upheld the punishment order withholding of his two grade increments with cumulative effect. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition thereby justified in upholding the punishment order? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and upon perusal of record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. 5. The appellant is a Constable in State Police Department. On 9.12.2001, two accused, who were in his custody ran away. This incident was made basis for inquiry against the appellant and in domestic inquiry held as per service Rules, the charge levelled against him stood proved. It was held that two accused who were in his custody ran away. A case of derelictions of duties having been held proved against the appellant, the appointing authority imposed a punishment of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect. The departmental appeal having failed, the appellant filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises challengng the imposition of punishment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition which gave rise to filing of this intra court appeal. 6. This is what the learned Single Judge held:- { 3 } “1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. By the impugned orders, the petitioner Ashok Kumar was saddled with punishment of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect after holding enquiry against him on a charge that from his custody, two accused persons ran away on 9.12.2001 when the accused Mahendra and Himmata Ram were being taken by the petitioner and one other person to the Court for hearing of the matter. 3. The authorities below have considered all the circumstances in detail and upon the charges being proved, the said punishment was imposed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already informed the Department that the accused persons were hardcore criminals and therefore, proper arms and ammunition should be provided to them and more personnel should be provided to take them to the Court. 4. Be that as it may, these circumstances were within the knowledge of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and in the circumstances narrated above and in the impugned orders, this Court is satisfied that imposition of penalty of this nature cannot be faulted and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.” { 4 } 8. We find no good reasons to take different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. It is unassailable in appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that due and proper departmental inquiry was held after affording an opportunity to appellant as per Rules. It is also not in dispute that the charge levelled against the appellant stood proved in the inquiry. Once the charge is proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment is to be imposed on the delinquent employee as provided in Rules. The punishment imposed in this case in our opinion is commensurate with the charge levelled against the appellant. Rather to our mind, it is on lesser side and it could as well be more because of the gravity and seriousness of charge. Be that as it may, we are not called upon to examine the quantum of punishment and that too at the instance of employer in tis case and hence we need not go into this issue in this writ appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant however argued that no proper opportunity in inquiry was granted to appellant. We find no merit in this submission for two reasons. In the first place, this submission was not raised before Single Judge and secondly no material was produced in support of this submission either in the writ or in appeal. In any event, the documents annexed by the appellant in this appeal go to show that adequate opportunity was granted to appellant and he too availed of the same. { 5 } 11. In totality of whole scenario, we find absolutely no merit in appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/