HONOURABLE VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.10.2002 whereby a minor penalty of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect was inflicted against him in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(2.) AGAINST the said order, the petitioner preferrexc an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA. Rules before the Divisional Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.5.2006 after elaborately considering entire facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority. Against the said order passed by appellate authority, further a review petition was filed by the petitioner before his Excellency the Governor and review petition was also rejected vide order dated 8.4.2008. Meaning thereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority is upheld by all the authorities in appeal and review petition. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that charge- sheet issued to the petitioner is itself illegal and petitioner acted in accordance with the notifications issued by the Governor for the purpose of distributing wheat, handed over to the petitioner for distribution in the affected area during famine. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is union leader of Patwari Sangh, therefore, to take revenge and to give lessor to the petitioner, this charge-sheet has been issued, which is based upon malafide. Therefore, the finding arrived at by all the authorities deserves to be quashed and the reply filed by the petitioner against the charge-sheet may be accepted. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused entire record of the case. Following charges were leveled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2000 : JUDGEMENT_2620_RAJLW3_2011Image1.jpg Upon perusal of the aforesaid charge-sheet, it is abundantly clear that while performing welfare duties, the State Government took decision to distribute wheat to poor persons in he famine affected area and for the said prupose, the petitioner was deployed and asked to distribute wheat. But admittedly, the wheat handed over to the petitioner was returned by him and not distributed in the famine affected area on the ground that out of two villages; one village was not declared famine affected area and in other village "Risaniya", there was no famine affected person to whom the wheat was to be distributed because all the citizens of village "Risaniya" are ex-jagirdar and they did not need any assistance from the Government, therefore, there was no question to distribute wheat to them. In my opinion, it is not a case of distribution of wheat to those persons who are flourished persons but petitioner was under obligation to obey the directions issued by the district Collector for distribution of what. Upon perusal of the reply, it reveals that there is no whisper that or any date, the petitioner went in famine affected village and made efforts for distribution of wheat. In reply, two pleas have been taken by the petitioner; first that the area in which the wheat was to be distributed all the citizens were in position to maintain themselves and there was no demand by any poor person to whom wheat was to be distributed, therefore, the petitioner returned wheat to the department and second plea is that he was restrained by the Tesildar not to distribute wheat in the affected area. In my opinion, while taking above contradictory pleas, somehow the petitioner has tried to substantiate his inaction and now raising illegal ground against the district Collector that due to his position in the Union, he has been charge-sheeted by the District Collector.
(3.) IN my opinion, it is a case of gross disobdience of the orders passed by the District Collector for distribution of wheat to the poor persons but they very lenient view has been taken by the Collector while issuing charge-sheet under Rule 17 of CCA. Rules. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority gave concurrent finding that the petitioner has committed misconduct of disobedience. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent finding given by all the authorities while exercising power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.;