// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6286/2002 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5854/2002 {Ravindra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others} Date of Order ::: 20.05.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Amardeep Atwal, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- At request of learned counsel for the parties, final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of. Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Charge against the petitioner was that he was instructed by his superior officer to complete the 'court cases register' but he did not obey the instructions and ultimately vide letter dated 21st February, 2000 he was given instructions in writing to complete the 'court cases register' and apprise with the same by 24th February, 2000. The petitioner submitted a written reply wherein he denied the charge. The disciplinary authority, vide its order dated 1st // 2 // June, 2000, recorded a finding that reply to the charge-sheet, filed by the delinquent (petitioner), is not satisfactory and consequently passed an order for withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by appellate authority by a detailed speaking order dated 7th May, 2001 (Annexure-6). Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order and further that the petitioner was not granted sufficient time to prepare and complete the 'court cases register', hence the order of penalty passed against him is liable to be set- aside. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders dated 1st June, 2000 as well as 7th May, 2001 and, after considering the same, I // 3 // find that before issuance of letter dated 21st February, 2000, the verbal instructions were given to the petitioner about four months ago to complete the 'court cases register' but the same were not obeyed by him and ultimately a written letter was also given to him on 21st February, 2000 to obey the instructions and apprise with the assigned work by 24th February, 2000, but the same was not done. In these circumstances, I find that the penalty imposed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was fully justified. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non- speaking order of the disciplinary authority is concerned, I find that looking to the charge levelled against the petitioner the order is speaking and well reasoned, more-so a bare perusal of the order of the appellate authority dated 7th May, 2001 will reveal that all the submissions of the petitioner were considered and a detailed speaking order was passed. The scope to interfere in such orders by this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is very limited. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the said order so as to interfere with the same under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the above discussions, I do // 4 // not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//