DBSAW NO.988/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.988/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1602/2006. Shiv Sahai Kumhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- July 22, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. J.K. Singhi for the appellant. ***** BY THE COURT :- This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22/3/2006 whereby the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and orders by which his appeal and review petition were rejected, was dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for appellant has argued that allegation against the appellant as reflected in the charge-sheet is that he while working on the post of Gardner refused to remove certain shrubs and plants whereas, the fact is that Additional Director (Adm.) DBSAW NO.988/08. 2 required the appellant to remove certain other 'malba' (debris). The charge was fabricated to show that the appellant refused to remove the shrubs and plants. When petitioner who was appointed as Gardener, insisted that this was not his part of his duties, the Additional Director (Adm.) took it as an offence and issued notice. It was argued that the appellate authority also erred in law in taking into consideration two penalties earlier imposed upon the appellant whereas, this was not made the part of the charge-sheet and without notice to the appellant, they could not considered. 3) Upon hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusing the judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that issues which have been urged before us have been examined by the learned Single Judge in greater details. The disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority have examined the matter thoroughly and found the charges of insubordination substantiated on evidence. Though the earlier two penalty orders were taken into consideration by the appellate authority, however, in our view, that has not caused any prejudice to the appellant especially when he does not dispute that those penalties were actually inflicted upon him. The reviewing authority has also examined and dismissed the review petition by a speaking order. DBSAW NO.988/08. 3 4) We, in exercise of our power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the matter by re- appreciating the evidence. In our view, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the orders of penalty and that of the appellate and reviewing authorities, do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant our interference. The special appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil