CW 2216/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2216/06 Sharvan Lal Versus RRVPN & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 07/05/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. B.L. Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Virendra Lodha, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order of penalty inflicted upon him after holding inquiry vide order Ann.10 dated 18th July, 2003 and so also order of appellate authority dated 3rd February, 2005 [Ann.12] and 20th January, 2006 [Ann.14]. Petitioner while working as Chowkidar for some alleged delinquency, a charge sheet was served upon him and after holding inquiry, he was held to be guilty and punished with the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect – against which departmental appeal was preferred which was decided by Shri A.C. Bhargava, who was working and holding the post of Superintending Engineer at the relevant point of time, vide order dated 3rd February, 2005. It is not disputed that there is a provision for second appeal which can be preferred by CW 2216/06 [2] delinquent. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of appellate authority passed by the then Superintending Engineer Shri A.C. Bhargava preferred second appeal before the competent authority but it appears that by that point of time, Shri A.C. Bhargava was further promoted as Zonal Chief Engineer and second appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by Shri A.C. Bhargava vide order Ann.14 dated 20th January, 2006. Counsel for petitioner has raised several submissions questioning the very charge sheet and punishment inflicted upon him by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that so far as second appeal preferred by him is concerned, the same has been rejected by the same person who at one point of time, dismissed the first appeal preferred by him while he was holding the post of Superintending Engineer. As such, rejection of second appeal by the same person merely because he was holding the higher post, violates his fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution and impugned action is also in violation of principles of natural justice. This fact has not been disputed by respondents, particularly, in Para 15 that Shri CW 2216/06 [3] A.C. Bhargava initially decided the first appeal preferred by petitioner while he was holding the post of Superintending Engineer later on he was promoted as Zonal Chief Engineer and rejected the second appeal also preferred by petitioner vide order dated 20th January, 2006. Remedy of appeal has been provided to the delinquent so that he can point out error, if committed, during the course of inquiry or if any, committed by the disciplinary authority in inflicting penalty upon him and the record of inquiry can be re-appreciated/re-examined before the appellate authority. In the instant case, first appeal preferred being decided by Shri A.K. Bhargava the then Superintending Engineer and second appeal preferred by him was also rejected by Shri A.K. Bhargava himself since later on he was promoted as Zonal Chief Engineer, thus, both the appeals were heard and decided by Shri A.K. Bhargava in different capacity. Thus, the remedy of second appeal provided to the petitioner in the facts of instant case certainly has been frustrated since Mr. Bhargava has already applied its mind while disposing of his first appeal, in opinion of this CW 2216/06 [4] court, passing order impugned by the same person at the stage of second appeal certainly was in violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The order Ann.14 dated 20th January, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the second appeal preferred by petitioner by a person other than Mr. A.C. Bhargava who has decided the first appeal preferred by him in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, on merits. However, petitioner will be free to raise all objections available to him under law before the concerned competent authority. It is expected from him to decide the second appeal within a period of three months after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2216CW2006 7-5.doc