While upholding the order withholding three annual grade increments of a Health Officer, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere reinstatement of the employee would not preclude the Department from conducting any enquiry.

The writ petition, before the High Court, was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order of penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner vide an order pursuant to a departmental enquiry.

The Single Bench of Justice Anand Sharma stated, “The representation of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and she was reinstated back in service. Even her reinstatement by the respondents would not mean that she has been absolved of all the misconduct, which were committed by her and mere reinstatement of the petitioner, does not preclude the respondentDepartment from conducting any enquiry whatsoever. Thus, the penalty order of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect cannot be challenged by the petitioner only on this ground.”

Advocate Tarun Jain represented the Petitioner, while Additional Government Counsel Archit Bohra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was initially appointed on probation to the post of Health Officer, pursuant to which the petitioner joined on July 8, 1992. On account of the willful absence of the petitioner during the probation period, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the termination order. The aforesaid petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. It was the petitioner’s case that she was reinstated in service. However, by way of issuing a charge-sheet in the year 1998, an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was initiated by the respondents against the petitioner, alleging the charges of willful absence for the same period for which earlier services of the petitioner were terminated.

In the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority passed an order whereby a penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and the review petition filed by the petitioner before the competent authority was also dismissed.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that disciplinary proceedings are conducted by the employer in exercise of its administrative authority to maintain discipline, integrity, and efficiency in service. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself. “Courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not sit as appellate authorities over departmental enquiries and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench found that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity at every stage. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were supported by evidence on record and could not be characterized as perverse or based on no evidence. “The petitioner’s attempt to invite this Court to reassess the evidence or to arrive at a different factual conclusion is wholly impermissible in writ jurisdiction, it held.

As per the Bench, the nature of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, viewed in the context of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post held, couldnot be said to be trivial or inconsequential. “The disciplinary authority has exercised its discretion after due consideration of the gravity of the charges, the service record of the petitioner, and the impact of the misconduct on the discipline of the organization. The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience of this Court, nor can it be termed outrageously disproportionate”, it aded.

The Bench held, “It is well settled that mere harshness of punishment is not a ground for judicial interference. Unless the penalty is such that no reasonable employer would have imposed it in the given facts, the Court must refrain from substituting its own sense of proportionality. To do otherwise would amount to converting judicial review into an appellate exercise, which is expressly forbidden by law.”

Thus, stating that the impugned orders do not suffer from illegality, irrationality, or perversity so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:239)

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan HCJustice Anand Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.