1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.560/2002 Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 16 th May, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mrs.Deepika Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Additional Government Advocate. .... This petition for writ is directed to challenge validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer imposing a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner while exercising powers conferred by Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 alongwith a charge sheet and a statement of allegations. An inquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority on denial of the charges by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 1.9.1998 exonerated the petitioner from the charges of misconduct. The appellate authority being in disagreement with the disciplinary authority 2 initiated proceedings under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 and by the order impugned imposed the penalty. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in light of proviso 3 to Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner beyond the period of six months. To verify the fact as to whether the appellate authority initiated proceedings under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 within a period of six months or not, this Court by an order dated 25.4.2007 directed the respondents to make available the relevant record i.e. shown to this Court today. From perusal of the record I found that as a matter of fact the appellate authority decided to initiate the proceedings under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 within a period of six months from the date of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as such, the contention raised by the petitioner as above is having no substance. The another contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect without any evidence on record. It is also urged that as a matter of fact the penalty was imposed by the appellate authority just on conjectures and surmises. I do not find any substance in the contention so made. 3 From perusal of the order impugned it is apparent that the learned appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer considered entire record of the inquiry and reached at a specific finding holding the employee guilt for the allegations of misconduct. Counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to satisfy the Court as to how the findings given by the appellate authority are not based on evidence or are otherwise perverse. In view of it, this petitioner for writ fails and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.