Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedMakhan Lal Mishra v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
2026:RJ-JP:35068
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2063/2002
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 1 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Anand Sharma
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Article 226; Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 — Rules 16 and 34
Final Outcome
Writ petition dismissed; the charge-sheet of 06.06.1994, the compulsory-retirement order of 26.02.1997 and the review order of 11.06.1998 stand; pending applications dismissed (paras 1, 18-19).
Source Rajasthan High Court, decided 01.09.2026
Key holdings
- In writ jurisdiction the Court examines the decision-making process and does not re-appreciate the enquiry evidence (para 14).
- The in-charge of a government dispensary is responsible for each and every entry in its record (para 15).
- The petitioner never showed that he had served a show cause notice on the subordinate he blamed (para 15).
- With issuance and signature undisputed, use of photocopies instead of original certificates made no difference (para 16).
- The earlier ruling in Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan was applied to uphold the penalty (paras 17-18).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, an Ayurved Chikitsak Grade-II in charge of a Government Ayurved Dispensary, was charge-sheeted on 06.06.1994 for allegedly issuing 24 irregular sickness/fitness certificates to an Assistant Grade-II covering 05.10.1989 to 05.09.1991 (para 2). After an enquiry he was compulsorily retired on proportionate pension on 26.02.1997; his review failed on 11.06.1998 and he filed the writ petition in 2002 (para 2). He contended that register entries were the compounder's job, that only photocopies were before the Enquiry Officer, that a witness was examined behind his back and that the penalty was disproportionate (paras 3-7). The State said the Rules were followed and some certificates covered days he was himself on leave (para 10).
Court's Findings
The Court held that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 it cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit as an appellate authority over the Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority, and must examine the decision-making process (para 14). Here the procedure under the 1958 Rules had been followed: a reply to the charge-sheet was invited, the enquiry gave both sides equal opportunity, witnesses were examined and the enquiry report was served for a representation (para 14). As holder of the dispensary's charge, the petitioner was responsible for each and every entry in its record and could not seek to be absolved because his subordinate failed in his duties; nothing showed he had ever served a show cause notice on that subordinate (para 15). Since he never disputed his signature on the certificates or their issuance, the plea about photocopies was "nothing but an after thought" and made no difference (para 16). Both authorities had considered all his objections (para 17). The Court applied its earlier decision in Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan, which confines review of disciplinary penalties to the decision-making process and to punishment that shocks the conscience (paras 17-18).
Legal Principle
An officer holding charge of a government dispensary is responsible for every entry in its records and cannot escape a disciplinary finding by blaming a subordinate. Where he never disputed issuing or signing the documents, the enquiry's reliance on photocopies does not vitiate it, and a writ court will not re-appreciate the evidence (paras 14-16).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Rajasthan High Court, decided on 06.01.2026
Writ review of disciplinary proceedings is confined to the decision-making process; the Court does not re-appreciate evidence and interferes with the penalty only if it shocks the conscience; its observations were held equally applicable.