Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dt.16.05.2008. However, at one stage, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing CWP-5467/2008 which was dismissed on availability of alternative remedy of review u/R.34 of the CCA Rules,1958 vide order dt.18.03.2009 and review petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by passing a detailed speaking order dt.21.04.2011 (Annx.6).
(2.) The petitioner who was a member of Class-IV at the relevant point of time working as Jamadar at His Excellency the Governor household, Governor House, Jaipur. It will be relevant to take note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner served along with memorandum u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 dt.26.11.2007 (Annx.1) which is reproduced here-as-under. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 3. However, enquiry was held by the disciplinary authority in which charges were found proved against him and prime allegation was that in the midnight on 25.10.2007 the controller when inspected VIP Room no.5 the petitioner was found lying on the bed and watching Television and apart from it other charges framed against the petitioner were found proved and punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dt.16.05.2008 (Annx.3) and the reviewing authority also examined the record of enquiry and the explanation furnished by him but looking to the gravity of the charges found proved against him rejected the review petition vide order dt.21.04.2011. 4. Counsel has tried to convince this Court that charges levelled against the petitioner are all concocted and this indirect method was adopted to oust him from the job but he was unable to place any material and obviously it was not possible for him being such a low paid employee and in such circumstances the finding which has been recorded in holding him guilty is perverse and the order of the reviewing authority also is not based on factual matrix of the matter and deserves to be quashed. 5. This Court is not supposed to take note of what is being urged by counsel for petitioner but would like to take note of the charges levelled against him which after holding regular enquiry provided u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 found proved against him and taking note of the nature of misconduct his guilt was found proved and punished with the penalty provided u/R.14 of the CCA Rules,1958 and the reviewing authority also examined the material of the disciplinary enquiry while upholding the penalty inflicted. This Court does not find any error being committed in the procedure adopted by the respondent and so also the quantum of punishment being inflicted upon the petitioner which in limited scope of judicial review u/Art.226 of the Constitution which may call for interference. 6. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.;