CW 12465/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12465/09 Devendra Kumar Jain Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 06/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner who while holding the post of Tehsildar after holding inquiry U/r.17 of CCA Rules, 1958 was punished with the penalty of censure vide order dt.27th March, 2006 and appeal preferred by him U/r.23 of the Rules was rejected by a reasoned order dt.28th February, 2008 [Ann.10]. The allegation was levelled against the petitioner for the period when he was posted as Tehsildar, Jaitaran from 14th April, 2000 to 27th September, 2002. The allegation against him was that one Appeal No.121/99 pending before the Board of Revenue, was decided on 29th March, 2001 and no reasonable efforts were made by the petitioner in taking action in reference to order of Board of Revenue as decision was against the Government. After notice was served, the petitioner submitted his reply. Taking note thereof and so also the fact that land holder CW 12465/09 [2] submitted application along with order of Board of Revenue in the office of petitioner while he was working as Tehsildar on 24th August, 2001 and even thereafter, he referred the matter for seeking comments to the Naib Tehsildar. But, no efforts were made in taking further action in compliance of the order of Board of Revenue after seeking opinion from the Advocate who represented the matter on behalf of State Government before the Board of Revenue. Taking note of his explanation and the period during which he remained posted. Since he failed to take reasonable steps as Officer of the Government, the authority found him guilty, but taking a lenient view punished with the penalty of censure vide order dt.27th March, 2006. Against the said order, he preferred appeal U/r.23 of the Rules and the appellate authority also examined in detail taking note of submission made and finally recorded finding in Para 5 and observed that once the order was passed by Board of Revenue on 29th March, 2001, it was expected from the petitioner to take immediate steps seeking necessary guidance and compliance of the order of Board of Revenue, particularly, when he remained posted in the office upto 27th September, 2002 almost a year after passing of the order by the Board of CW 12465/09 [3] Revenue and that certainly has caused delay in filing writ petition against the order of Board of Revenue. Taking note thereof, departmental appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order on 28th February, 2008. Counsel submits that petitioner took all reasonable steps available at his command and he approached office of Government Advocate who represented the matter before the Board of Revenue, but finally opinion itself was sent by him Ann.4 dt.27th March, 2004 and immediately thereafter, the Government took final decision of filing writ petition and assailing order of Board of Revenue. Thus, there cannot be said that petitioner was at fault, particularly, when he left office as Tehsildar, Jaitaran on 27th September, 2002. In opinion of this court, submission is without substance for the reason that when the order was passed by Board of Revenue on 29th March, 2001, it was expected from the petitioner to take reasonable steps and to watch the interest of the Government being its officer and taking reasonable steps in regard to order by CW 12465/09 [4] which adverse decision was pronounced by the Board of Revenue against the Government and since he remained posted upto 27th September, 2002 almost for a year the disciplinary authority observed that it was expected from the petitioner to take reasonable steps in taking further action in pursuance of order of the Board of Revenue by which the Government could be said to be aggrieved. Taking note thereof, still took lenient view by passing order inflicting penalty of censure upon the petitioner. The appellate authority has also examined in detail but did not find favour and rejected the appeal by a reasoned order. This court is not sitting as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the finding which has been recorded by the disciplinary/appellate authority. After hearing counsel for petitioner, this court does not find error being committed by the authority taking such decision which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA12465CW09 6-10.doc