- (1.) The appellants have preferred this intra-Court appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 13 th September 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner was partly allowed and the penalty of compulsory retirement was altered and substituted by penalty of withholding annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Stated in succinct, the factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that while working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of first appellant, Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases), Jodhpur, the respondent-petitioner was served with a memorandum and chargesheet dated 20 th of February 2010 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). In the chargesheet, under mentioned three charges were attributed to the respondent. "XXX XXX XXX"
(2.) Responding to memorandum and chargesheet, the delinquent submitted his reply and denied all the charges. The reply submitted by the respondent was not found to be satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and consequently a regular disciplinary enquiry was ordered against him. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority himself and in the report the delinquent respondent was indicted for all the three charges. On conclusion of the enquiry, the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the respondent-employee and thereafter vide order dated 10 th May 2010, penalty of compulsory retirement from service with forfeiture of wages for the suspension period other than subsistence allowance was inflicted. The disciplinary authority has also allowed three months' salary to the respondent. Being aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 19 th of May 2010 and the said appeal was placed before the Appellate Committee of the High Court. The Appellate Committee, after examining the matter in its entirety, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the punishment order and the order of appellate authority, the respondent laid writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned writ Court granted indulgence to the respondent employee by partly allowing the writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vinit Mathur, has vehemently argued that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the penalty which was inflicted on the delinquent employee as a consequence of his indictment in the departmental enquiry. While buttressing his submissions with full emphasis, Mr. Mathur has argued that the matter was examined threadbare by the appellate authority also, and therefore, it was not desirable for the learned Single Judge to have interfered with the impugned punishment order. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Mathur has also contended that when the charges were fully established against the delinquent employee, which were of grave and serious nature, interference by the learned Single Judge was not called for. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mathur has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Narain Singh, 2002 5 SCC 11. The Apex Court, while examining the scope of judicial review in the matter of punishment, has made following observations in Para 9 & 10 of the verdict: 9) As seen above, the Division Bench notes that the charges against the respondent are proved and that the charges are of serious nature. Once the Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and that the charges were of a serious nature, it was not the function of the Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The Division Bench was wrong in holding that factors viz. a) the person is coming from which place, b) his family background and (c) his service record etc. were to be kept in mind. In our view, the Division Bench was also wrong in holding that if a poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct, then extreme penalty of dismissal is uncalled for. In our view a Court must not lightly interfere with sentences passed after a properly conducted enquiry where the guilt is proved. Reduction of sentence, particularly in military, para- military or police services can have a demoralising effect and would be a retrograde step so far as discipline of these services is concerned. In this case the charges being of a serious nature the penalty was commensurate with the charges. Further the Division Bench has itself noted that this was the third time the respondent was punished. 10) Mr. Mehta tried to support the impugned Order on the ground that the Division Bench had taken a just and kind view considering the fact that the respondent had served for a long time and came from a poor family. He submitted that the impugned Order was a just order and should not be interfered with. We are unable to accept this submission. As stated above, the law is clear. It is not for the Court to determine the quantum of punishment once charges are proved. In this case it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal is not commensurate with the charges. It is not for the Court to interfere on misplaced grounds of sympathy and/or mercy.;