SBCWP4472/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4472/1997 Bhanwar Lal Khatik Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 19.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Satyavrat Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order of penalty dated 21.10.1992 by which he was awarded penalty of 'censure' and the order dated 22.06.1993 by which his appeal filed against the order of penalty, was dismissed by the appellate authority. Apart from making various other arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that arguments, which he raised before this Court in present writ petition, substantially were raised before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for petitioner to fortify his contention has taken the Court to SBCWP4472/1997 // 2 // Annexure-3, which is a copy of memo of appeal. However, it is submitted that appellate authority has, in just one paragraph, cursorily rejected the appeal of petitioner without adverting to those arguments and without considering submissions made by petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was not on duty when the F.I.R. was lodged against Constables for which he was served with the charge-sheet in question. The review order also suffers from same infirmities. The reviewing authority, although noted the arguments in detail by reproducing most of them, has not discussed the same and rejected the review petition. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that orders passed in appeal and review petition are fairly detailed one and order rejecting petitioner's appeal was passed while concurring with findings of disciplinary authority, and they were not required to be dealt with in details. Upon considering submission made at the bar and perusing impugned orders, especially orders passed by appellate authority and reviewing authority, I find that neither of SBCWP4472/1997 // 3 // them considered submissions made by petitioner in appeal and review petition. Any discussion on merits on those arguments was not considered appropriate and, in my view, this matter requires reconsideration at the end of appellate authority. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 22.06.1993 of appellate authority and 06.01.1997 of reviewing authority are set aside. The matter is remanded to appellate authority for reconsidering the appeal in accordance with the law. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//