1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 677/2002 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3072/1996 Kanahiya Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & anr 30.03.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Mr RD Rastogi Mr NS Chauhan – for appellant Mr NA Naqvi, Addl Advocate General - for respondents BY THE COURT: Aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.10.2001 this appeal has been preferred. By the aforesaid judgment, writ petition of the petitioner appellant was dismissed. Petitioner appellant filed the writ petition challenging order of punishment. It is a case where petitioner appellant was charge-sheeted and on completion of inquiry punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed. Challenge to order of punishment has been made mainly on the ground that petitioner appellant was not served with the charge sheet and otherwise was not allowed to inspect the 2 documents. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any error in the judgment impugned. It is only urged that merely for the reason that appellant failed to raise certain issues while giving representation on receipt of copy of inquiry report, the matter should not have been decided against him. We have looked into aforesaid issue and find that it is a case where after issuance of charge sheet petitioner appellant was called upon to participate in the inquiry but appellant chose not to remain present in the inquiry. He was thereupon called upon to inspect documents however that opportunity was not availed. The inquiry was then completed followed by service of copy of the inquiry report to the appellant. At that stage, appellant gave representation which has been placed on record. Perusal of representation makes it clear that the issues and grounds raised before the learned Single Judge were not otherwise raised in representation. If petitioner appellant was aggrieved with the inquiry or its proceedings on any ground, he ought to have raised all the issues while making representation on receipt of copy of inquiry report. It is because if grounds raised in representation are accepted, the Disciplinary Authority can refer the matter back to the Inquiry Officer and that is the purpose of giving a copy of 3 the inquiry report. Since petitioner appellant failed to raise any objection against inquiry and its procedure in representation so submitted on receipt of copy of inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority considered the matter and passed punishment order. Learned Single Judge has even taken note of all the aspects and also of charges levelled against petitioner appellant and punishment order passed and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition making observations that it is a case where severe punishment should have been ordered against petitioner appellant however taking a lenient view he was punished with withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and period of suspension was regularised. In view of discussion made aforesaid, learned Single Judge refused to quash the order of punishment challenged before it. We do not find any error or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Now, petitioner appellant has since retired and looking to the nature of punishment and also the facts we are not inclined to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. (MN Bhandari) J (Jagdish Bhalla) CJ bnsharma