JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-judicial officer, assailed the order of punishment of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect dated 5.8.2013 after holding enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, while the officer was as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navalgarh (Jhunjhunu) during the period 2005 to 2008. 2. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and memorandum along with statement of allegations dated 15.7.2010 was served upon the delinquent officer, and we consider it appropriate to quote allegations levelled against him:- "1. That, you, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, during the period of year 2005 to 2008, were posted and working as Civil Judge (S.D.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh district Jhunjhunu. 2. That, you took charge of the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh on 10.06.2005 and a Criminal Complaint No. 22/2003 titled Bajrang Lal v. Mahendra Singh u/s 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC came before you for the first time on 13.07.2005. From 13.07.2005 to 23.11.2005, you adjourned the matter for four times for hearing arguments and ultimately, on 23.11.2005, the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 28.11.2005. On 28.11.2005, you did not pass the order due to your engagement in some other work and fixed the case for 12.12.2005. From 12.12.2005 to 17.08.2007, you unnecessarily again fixed the case for arguments though, you had already heard the arguments on 23.11.2005 and liberally granted adjournments and ultimately, on 22.08.2007, you passed the order and sent the complaint to the police for investigation under 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. That, you deliberately and unnecessarily granted 34 adjournments on the question whether you could take cognisance or not and ultimately without passing any order on merit, you sent the complaint to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, you deliberately delayed the disposal of the case in a serious matter under section 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC, for such a long time without any justifiable reasons. 4. That, your above act of deliberately delaying the disposal of the case in a serious matter tantamounts to dereliction towards duties and that amounts to misconduct and unbecoming of a judicial officer. Thereby, you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty which amounts to violation of provisions of Rule 3 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971." 3. That, your above act of deliberately delaying the disposal of the case in a serious matter tantamounts to dereliction towards duties and that amounts to misconduct and unbecoming of a judicial officer. Thereby, you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty which amounts to violation of provisions of Rule 3 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971." 3. It is not the case of petitioner that procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rule 17 has not been followed and that there is a denial of principles of natural justice at any stage in the process of enquiry. The Hon'ble Enquiry Judge in its report, which is on record Annexure-8, took note of the available material and the justification forwarded by the petitioner-judicial officer and finally held the charge proved against him, and we consider it appropriate to quote the final conclusion of the Hon'ble Enquiry Judge:- "10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons given, the inevitable conclusion is that the delay caused in disposal of the criminal complaint no.22/2003 in the court of ACJM Navalgarh was without any justifiable reason. The manner in which the delinquent officer had proceeded in the instant case, firstly by delaying the disposal of the case and thereafter deciding the same with the direction to send the complaint to the police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is wholly illegal and contrary to law goes to show that he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty. The charge against the delinquent officer of deliberate delay in disposal of a case pertaining to serious offences such as 420, 465, 467 and 471 IPC stands proved. It tentamounts to dereliction towards duties and misconduct. 11. In the result, Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the then Civil Judge (SD) and ACJM Navalgarh, is found guilty of the charges levelled against him in the present inquiry." 4. It was finally approved by the Full Court and a punishment of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.2013. 5. Submission of the counsel for petitioner is that it was the complainant who himself was asking for adjournments, and the order-sheets of last two years, 2005 to 2007, are placed on record to justify that it was the complainant who always sought for adjournments. 5. Submission of the counsel for petitioner is that it was the complainant who himself was asking for adjournments, and the order-sheets of last two years, 2005 to 2007, are placed on record to justify that it was the complainant who always sought for adjournments. However, finally the officer vide its order issued on 2.8.2007 sent the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and as regards 24 adjournments which were sought as alleged, and granted by the officer tender a justification, but that was not accepted by the Hon'ble Enquiry Judge and cogent reasons have been assigned in support thereof. 6. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 we are not sitting as a court of appeal to appreciate the findings recorded in the disciplinary enquiry and is not to be interfered unless there is either a violation of principles of natural justice, or the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, has not been followed, which is not the case set up by the petitioner. Even before this court the counsel has tried to justify that if the adjournments were granted at the request of the complainant and indulgence was granted by the petitioner at-least no imputations can be alleged merely on grant of simple adjournments and inflicting penalty upon him as a consequence thereof vide order dated 5.8.2013 is not sustainable in law. 7. The submission made is wholly without substance for the reason that the allegation against the petitioner was that after he took cognisance of the matter in a criminal complaint no. 22/2003, titled Bajrang Lal v. Mahendra Singh , u/sec. 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B IPC, which for the first time came before him on 13.7.2005, and after the arguments were heard the case was fixed for pronouncement of orders on 28.11.2005, and thereafter adjournments one after the other were granted, and finally order was pronounced by the officer on 22.8.2007 sending the complaint to the police for investigation u/sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The narration of the facts which have been taken note by the Hon'ble Enquiry Judge in its report is self explicit and requires no explanation to be enquired upon that too in an enquiry initiated u/rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. 8. 8. Counsel submits that he has been deprived of his promotion also because of the impediment of punishment inflicted upon him and if considered appropriate, liberty may be granted to make a representation for his promotion. The petitioner is always at liberty to make representation, and if such representation is made, it is open for the authorities to examine independently in accordance with law. 9. After we have heard the counsel for petitioner, we find no infirmity in the decision making process adopted by the respondents in passing of the order of penalty dated 5.8.2013, which may call for our interference. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with the observations supra.Petition dismissed. *******