SBCWP No.6672/94. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6672/1994. Sharvan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : October 14, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajesh Rajkumawat for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- The petitioner has challenged the order of penalty dated 12/2/1988 (Ann.6) by which his one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was withheld and salary of one day i.e. for dated 21/1/1984 was deducted. The petitioner subsequently filed appeal which was allowed in part and penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect which was originally imposed upon him was altered to the penalty of same nature without cumulative effect by regularising his period of absence of one day by grant of leave therefor. 2) Shri Rajesh Rajkumawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge-sheet Annexure-2 and the order of penalty do not indicate whether enquiry was conducted under Rule 16 or under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services SBCWP No.6672/94. 2 (Classification, Control & Appeal Rules), 1958 (for short, "CCA Rules"). It was argued that disciplinary authority had no power to impose penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. The appellate authority originally returned the appeal observing that since the petitioner has now been transferred to the services of the State Government, appeal was not competent. Subsequently however, appeal was decided by the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad on merits. The complainant, who made the complaint, later withdrew the same and, therefore, basis for holding departmental enquiry against the petitioner ceased to subsist. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned-order may be quashed and set-aside. 3) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that the order of penalty was substantially altered by the appellate authority. While penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was changed to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and period of absence of one day was regularised by granting him leave. It was argued that there remained only one penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 4) Upon consideraion of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the material on record, I find that SBCWP No.6672/94. 3 what finally was awarded to the petitioner was penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Period of one day was regularised by grant of leave. This court cannot re- examine the evidence led before the disciplinary authority only with a view to arrive at a different conclusion. So long as it is not shown that there was total lack of evidence or that conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority were such as no reasonable man of ordinary prudent could reach, no interference can be made by this court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant subsequently, does not render the disciplinary proceedings incompetent because ultimate order is based on material on record. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence on record which can sustain the order. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner for not holding any enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules because ultimately, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, has been awarded, which could be awarded in the scope of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, which is what has been done in the present case. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil