ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The petitioner, who is Head Constable in RAC has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 10th December, 2010 (Annex. 10), whereby the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of 3 Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2015 (Annex-12), whereby his appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority by treating the same as time barred. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a memorandum along with charge-sheet dated 6th December, 2004, under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, by Commandant 7th Battalion, RAC Bharatpur, wherein 5 charges were levelled against him. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet submitted his reply and denied all the charges levelled against him. 4. The petitioner had requested the authorities that for one alleged incident of a criminal case dated 5th July, 2004, the petitioner was sought to be falsely implicated with other family members, as he was in the Government Service. The petitioner requested for dropping the Department Enquiry initiated against him. 5. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14th August, 2004 placed the petitioner under suspension invoking the power under Rule 13 of CCA Rules. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner and the regular Department enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer and he submitted a report dated 8th December, 2006 and found all the charges proved against the petitioner in the Department Enquiry. 6. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30th June, 2007 (Annex. 6), passed an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of 2 Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty and raised specific plea that the petitioner had committed any misconduct and only due to a criminal case registered against him and another family members, he was unnecessarily dragged in a Department Enquiry. 7. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 23rd September, 2008 (Annex. 7. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 23rd September, 2008 (Annex. 7), had passed a remand order and directed the Disciplinary Authority that with respect to absence of petitioner from duty, fresh evidence of medical certificates was produced by the petitioner and as such the petitioner was required to be issued a charge-sheet and after conducting the enquiry decision was required to be taken. 8. The operative portion of the Appellate Authority is reproduced as hereunder :- **vr% i=koyh bu funsZ'kksa ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr@fjek.M+@dh tkrh gS fd vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh vihykFkhZ ds fo:) LoSfPNd vuqifLFkfr ,oa mlds }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s fpfdRldh; izek.k i=ksa dh izekf.kdrk o izfdz;kuqlkj gksus ls lacaf/kr fcUnqvksa ij mDr ds fo:) jktLFkku vlSfud lsok;sa@oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy@fu;ekoyh 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds vUrxZr iqu% vkjksi fu/kkZfjr dj tkap fu"d"kksZ ds vk/kkj ij gh rnuqlkj fu.kZ; ysdj izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djsaxsA** 9. The petitioner was again served with charge-sheet dated 22nd April, 2009, by the Disciplinary Authority and 6 charges were levelled against the petitioner. The earlier 5 charges which were levelled against the petitioner were identical, however, charge No. 6 was with respect to violation of Rule 86 of RSR. 10. The petitioner was again served with charge-sheet dated 22nd April, 2009, by the Disciplinary Authority and 6 charges were levelled against the petitioner. The earlier 5 charges which were levelled against the petitioner were identical, however, charge No. 6 was with respect to violation of Rule 86 of RSR. 10. The charges levelled against the petitioner are reproduced as hereunder :- vkjksi ua0%& 1 ;g gS fd vki gSM+ dkfu0 121 Jh fot;flag lkroha cVkfy;u vk,lh dh laLFkkiu 'kk[kk esa lh dEiuh ls vVSp FksA vki vius fuokl LFkku ¼?kj½ dqEgSj fcuk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dh vuqefr ds fnuakd 04-07-2004 dks pys x;sA fnuakd 05-07-2004 dks izkr% dky ds le; vkidk ikfjokfjd >xM+k gqvk] ftlesa vki }kjk vius pkpk Jh enuyky dks xEHkhj pksVsa igqapk dj ?kk;y dj fn;k ftldh nkSjkus bZykt e`R;q gks xbZA ftles vkids fo:) eqdnek ua0 264@2004 vUrxZr /kkjk 143] 323] 341] 329] 351] 307] esa Fkkuk dqEgSj esa ntZ gqvkA rnksijkUr vki dk;kZy; le; 10 cts cVkfy;u eq[;ky; vkdj mifLFkfr iaftdk es fcuk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dh tkudkjh ds yk, gLrk{kj fd;s] tks fd vkids lafnX/k vkpj.k ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg djus dh fu;r dks n'kkZrk gSA vkjksi ua0%& 2 ;g gS fd vkidks M~;wVh ij mifLFkfr gksus gsrq dk;kZy; ds i=kad 2050 fnuakd 19-07-2004 ds vuqlkj uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k ysfdu vki uksfVl dh ijokg fd;s oxSj vuqifLFkr pyrs jgs] vkidk ;g d`R; M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh] LoSPNkpkfjrk ,oa vdeZ.;rk dh laKk esa vkrk gSA vkjksi ua0%& 3 ;g gS fd vki fnuakd 05-07-2004 dks vkilh yM+kbZ >xM+s esa 'kkfey gksrs gq, Hkh vkius fnuakd 12-07-2004 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj >xM+s dh fnuakd 05-07-2004 dh lqcg 6 cts ls lk; 5 cts rd dk mifLFkfr izek.k i= fn, tkus gsrq bl dk;kZy; esa fuosnu fd;kA vkids fo:) mlh fnu iqfyl Fkkuk dqEgsj esa vfHk;ksx ntZ gks x;k Fkk vkius vkijkf/kd d`R; ls cpus ds fy;s /kks[kk nsdj mifLFkfr izek.k i= ekaxkA vkjksi ua0%& 4 ;g gS fd vkius fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk fnuakd 08-07-2004 ls 21-04-2004 rd 288 fnu ds fpfdRlk izek.k i= ftl fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls izkIr fd;s mudks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftl fpfdRlk ds izek.k i= izLrqr fd;s ml fpfdRlk dks 15 fnu dk izek.k i= nsus dks vf/kdkj gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk 15 fnu ls vf/kd dfu"B fo'ks"kKk ,oa 45 fnu ls vf/kd ofj"B fo'ks"kK rFkk blls vf/kd esM+hdy cksM+Z }kjk fpfdRlk izek.k i= iznRr fd;k tkrk gSA vki }kjk izLrqr fpfdRlk izek.k i= tkap ls fu;e fo:) ik, x, gSA vkjksi ua0%& 5 ;g gS fd vkids fo:) Fkkuk dqEgsj esa vfHk;ksx la[;k 264@2004 /kkjk vUrxZr 143] 323] 341] 379 vkbZihlh esa ntZ gksus ij vki iqfyl fgjklr@U;kf;d fgjklr tsy esa jgs gS ftlls foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ gSA vkjksi ua0%& 6 vkius jkT; lsok fu;e 86 dk mYy?kau fd;k gSA 11. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet submitted his reply and again denied the charges levelled against him. 12. The Disciplinary Authority again appointed the Enquiry Officer and after recording evidence and taking into account the documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15th September, 2009. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of report, passed the impugned penalty order dated 10th December, 2010, whereby the petitioner has been visited with a penalty of stoppage of 3 Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect. 13. The petitioner had filed a Review Petition dated 10th June, 2015 before the Higher Authority and requested that the penalty imposed against him was justified, in the facts of the case and petitioner further prayed that there was no evidence on record to hold him guilty. 14. The Additional Director General of Police, Arms Battalion Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 3rd July, 2015 passed an order by treating the Review Petition of the petitioner as appeal and same has been found to be time barred as it was filed in three months period as per Rule 25 of CCA Rules of 1958. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the impugned orders are illegal and as such these are sustainable in the eye of law. Counsel submits that all the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were based on a criminal case registered at Police Station Kumher in FIR No. 265/2004 for offence under Section 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Counsel submits that the charges though bifurcated into separate 5-6 charges, however, the incident was of 5th July, 2004, for which there was already a criminal case against the petitioner and other family members. 16. Counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority could punish the petitioner by recording evidence in the Department Enquiry, as the same charges which were levelled against him in a criminal case. 17. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was absent from duty and he had filed a medical certificate to prove that there was a valid reasons for attending the duty on the particular date and without any justification, the Disciplinary Authority has ignored the relevant evidence produced by the petitioner in his case. 18. 17. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was absent from duty and he had filed a medical certificate to prove that there was a valid reasons for attending the duty on the particular date and without any justification, the Disciplinary Authority has ignored the relevant evidence produced by the petitioner in his case. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and the family feud with other persons led to registration of a false criminal case resulting into acquittal. 19. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. The Court finds that the initial charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and penalty order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority exercised its power and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, to look into the entire incident by issuing a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after matter being remanded by the Appellate Authority, issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and as such de-novo enquiry was conducted. 21. The Enquiry Officer was appointed after charge-sheet was served to the petitioner and he has undertaken the entire exercise of recording evidence and then he made recommendations that charges against the petitioner stands proved. The Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority looking to the gravity of charge imposed penalty of stoppage of 3 Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has been made to suffer in a Department Enquiry on account of a criminal case, the Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has been guided by the order of acquittal or allegations of criminal nature which were levelled against the petitioner. 22. The Enquiry Officer has recorded evidence of independent witnesses and after taking into account the documentary evidence report was prepared. Petitioner has been visited with the penalty order by the Disciplinary authority after considering entire record. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that only due to an alleged incident of 4th July, 2004, petitioner has been implicated, the Court finds that charge No. 2 was in respect of absence of the petitioner from duty in spite of notice by the Department dated 19th July, 2004, to report and petitioner did bother to give reply or report back after receipt of such notice. The charge No. 3 was in respect of getting duty certificate for 5th July, 2004 to take plea of alibi in criminal case. 23. The Court further finds that the charge No. 4 was in respect of absence of the petitioner from 8th July, 2004 to 21st April, 2005 i.e. 288 days and the certificates which were produced by the petitioner of Medical Officer, were valid only for a duration of 15 days and beyond Medical leave of 15 days, as per Rules and instructions from the State Government, the medical certificates were required to be given by the Junior Specialist/Senior Specialist or Medical Board. 24. The Disciplinary Authority while passing the penalty order has recorded the finding that the petitioner mislead the higher authorities, marked his attendance in the register in spite of absence, obtained the certificates on false pretext and further he was behind the bar in a criminal case resulting into tarnishing image of police. 25. In the opinion of the Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that charges in a criminal case and in the Department Enquiry were identical, the same does merit acceptance from bare perusal of the order by which petitioner has been acquitted and the charges were levelled against him in the Departmental enquiry and the penalty order being passed against him. 26. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that medical certificate of the petitioner has been looked into, the Court finds that once the Authority examined all the relevant witnesses and taken into account the certificate filed by the petitioner, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its finding when Disciplinary Authority by considering all the relevant evidence, has reached to conclusion on the basis of entire material produced during enquiry. 27. The submission of the learned counsel that petitioner has been made a scapegoat and he has been implicated due to criminal case registered against him, the Court finds that the acquittal order of the petitioner and other persons was due to lack of evidence and as such the petitioner cannot claim that he has been honourably acquitted from the charge levelled against him in the criminal case. The operative portion of judgment dated 26th April, 2006 is reproduced as hereunder :- mijksDr leLr vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k dh lk{; ls Li"V gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gS fd gLrxr izdj.k esa eqyfteku fot;flag] 'kdqUryk] deys'k] foeys'k o 'kf'k }kjk izdj.k ds et:oku ds lkFk ykBh] Qjlk vkfn ls ekjihV dh xbZ gS ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i gLrxrizdj.k ds et:oku ds pksVs vkbZ gks rFkk enuyky dh mu pksVks ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ gksA gLrxr izdj.k ds lHkh ut:oku o eqLrxhl i{k nzksgh ?kksf"kr gq;s gSA p'enhr xokgku i{kgh gh ?kksf"kr gq;s gSA fdlh Hkh lk{kh us vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu ugh fd;k gS bl izdkj i=koyh ij ,slh lk{; ugh gS ftlls gLrxr] dj.k dh ?kVuk laca/k eqyfteku ds lkFk tksM+k tk ldrk gSA vr% eqyft;ku ds f[kykQ yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ls eqyfteku lk{; ds vHkko esa nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr gksus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vkns'k%& ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDrx.k deys'k] 'kf'k] foeys'k ,oa fot;flag dks Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 148] 323] 324] 302 lifBr /kkjk 149 Jknal0 ds vkjksiksa ls lk{; ds vHkko esa nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA mijksDr vfHk;qDrx.k ds gktjh ckcr tekur eqpyds fejLr fd;s tkrs gSA 28. Though, the Court is not giving any finding or observation on the order passed in a criminal case, however, suffice it to say that if there is a misconduct committed by an employee the authorities are always having their discretion to initiate the Disciplinary proceedings and merely due to findings given in a criminal case, the authorities are not precluded from initiating the disciplinary enquiry, if any misconduct is found to be committed by the employee. 29. The Court finds no force in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.