ORDER : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality, validity and propriety of order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, whereby penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-II, Jaipur, whereby although while exercising appellate powers, penalty of withholding three annual grade increments imposed by the disciplinary authority has been reduced to penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, yet he failed to exonerate the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1993, thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Inspector and was posted as Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Behror, District Alwar, for a period between 2003-06. While, the petitioner was posted as S.H.O., Police Station Behror, a deceased's Mrig report was received at Police Station Behror from Police Station Moti Dungari, Jaipur. Since, the deceased was resident of area under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Behror, Mrig report was registered under Section 174 IPC at Police Station, Behror. Alleging irregularities and illegalities in the investigation conducted by the Police Station Behror, in respect of Mrig report, charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958') was issued to the petitioner on 03.02.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that at the time when charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, S.P., Alwar, the petitioner was posted in District Dausa, therefore, in the light of notification dated 17.10.1986 issued by the State Government, only S.P., Dausa could have issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and S.P., Alwar had got no authority to issue such charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet was based upon so many documents mentioned therein, yet despite specific demand raised by the petitioner either for furnishing copy of the charge-sheet, or for permitting inspection of record by the petitioner, such opportunity was not granted to him. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet was based upon so many documents mentioned therein, yet despite specific demand raised by the petitioner either for furnishing copy of the charge-sheet, or for permitting inspection of record by the petitioner, such opportunity was not granted to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charge-sheet was in fact issued to the petitioner for the acts and omissions, which were not part of duty of S.H.O., and were relating to the duty of Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at S.H.O. Behror. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to investigation conducted in the year 2003-04, charge-sheet was issued with a delay of around 3 years, which has also caused prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner as well as the relevant record in objective manner, and penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner with pre-occupied mind and looking to the nature of misconduct assigned in the charge-sheet, such penalty was harsh and excessive. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved by order dated 07.11.2008, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 before the Inspector General of Police, who was Appellate Authority. Learned counsel submits that although the Appellate Authority in its order has found that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet were related to work conduct and duties of Assistant Sub-Inspector- Hukum Chand, yet despite giving such categorical finding, instead of exonerating the petitioner, by assuming supervisory negligence on the part of the petitioner, which was never the charge against the petitioner, instead of penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect, penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect has been imposed. Thus, even the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise its power in justified, reasonable and effective manner. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned orders. Learned counsel submitted that scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the matters of disciplinary enquiry is extremely limited. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned orders. Learned counsel submitted that scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the matters of disciplinary enquiry is extremely limited. Powers of judicial review can be exercised only in the cases, where there is apparent and manifest illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority or higher authorities, or in the cases, where the petitioner succeeds in establishing violation of mandatory statutory procedure or disobedience of principles of natural justice, or in the cases, where the penalty imposed is found to be harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the guilt, which touches the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any such ground in order to challenge the impugned orders. 8. Learned counsel submits that as the charges contained in the charge-sheet, were of the period, when the petitioner was working under the control of S.P., Alwar, therefore, he had competence to issue charge-sheet, and to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation pertaining to the opportunity to defend, was not properly afforded to the petitioner is incorrect, in fact by issuing letter dated 14.08.2007, the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to inspect the relevant record for the purpose of filing reply to the charge-sheet, however, despite receiving such letter dated 14.08.2007, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, hence, at this later stage, no such ground can be raised by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the disciplinary authority examined the reply to the charge-sheet as well as the relevant material and after analysing the same, in order to enforce discipline, penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the disciplinary authority examined the reply to the charge-sheet as well as the relevant material and after analysing the same, in order to enforce discipline, penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that on filing appeal by the petitioner against the penalty order, the Appellate Authority was considerate enough to appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioner, and found the fact that the allegation in charge-sheet were related to direct duties of concerned A.S.I., however, at the same time considering the fact that the petitioner was in-charge of the police station and was responsible for all the actions/inactions of the police station, finding a serious supervisory lapse on the part of the petitioner, while reducing the penalty of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority, the Appellate Authority has rightly maintained penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. Thus, the Appellate Authority has already taken a lenient view, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was not entitled for clear cut exoneration. Hence, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Uma Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13813/2008 decided on 19.01.2026 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. This Court is mindful of the fact that the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is very limited and only the decision making process can be examined by this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not the decision itself. 12. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised an objection i.e. on the date of issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner was posted at Dausa, therefore, S.P., Alwar had no jurisdiction whatsoever either to issue charge-sheet, or to penalty order. In this regard, this Court examined reply to the charge- sheet filed by the petitioner, where no such objection questioning the jurisdiction and competence of S.P., Alwar in relation to issuing the charge-sheet, or conducting enquiry was raised by the petitioner. In this regard, this Court examined reply to the charge- sheet filed by the petitioner, where no such objection questioning the jurisdiction and competence of S.P., Alwar in relation to issuing the charge-sheet, or conducting enquiry was raised by the petitioner. Even, the petitioner had opportunity to raise all objections before the Appellate Authority, but this Court find that no such objection was raised by the petitioner even before the Appellate Authority. Although, a vague assertion has been made in writ petition referring alleged notification dated 17.10.1986, yet copy of such notification has not been placed on record, nor the details thereof, has been given in sufficient manner, so as to infer that only the controlling authority, where an employee posted at the time of issuance of charge-sheet, was only entitled to issue charge-sheet to the delinquent, and no other authority can issue a charge-sheet. Even otherwise, such contention is totally misconceived and unfounded. For the reason that in the instant case, admittedly charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner in relation to an incident, which took place in the year 2003-04 and admittedly at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as S.H.O. Behror, District Alwar, which comes under the jurisdiction of S.P., Alwar. Hence, in order to enquire into an incident, which took place within his jurisdiction, the S.P., Alwar had authority and competence to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner, therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 13. As regards, the ground raised by the petitioner that the penalty orders suffered due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice and procedure contemplated under the provisions of Rules of 1958 due to non-supply of copies of relevant documents or not permitting inspection thereof, is apparently against the record. Petitioner has not denied that the letter dated 14.08.2007 (annex.-R/1) issued by the S.P., Alwar was not received by him. Bare perusal of letter dated 14.08.2007 would make it clear that vide aforesaid letter, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to inspect the relevant record for the purpose of filing reply to the charge-sheet. Instead of disclosing this fact correctly, the petitioner has suppressed this material fact and has made incorrect statement in memo of writ petition that the opportunity was not granted to him. 14. Instead of disclosing this fact correctly, the petitioner has suppressed this material fact and has made incorrect statement in memo of writ petition that the opportunity was not granted to him. 14. Even, the penalty order dated 29.11.2007 also records this fact that letter dated 14.08.2007 was issued, providing opportunity to the petitioner for inspecting the record, yet nothing has been stated in the memo of writ petition for controverting such factual aspect. Even, this point was not raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. It is expected from every citizen to approach this Court with clean hands, while invoking the jurisdiction of Court of law. The writ jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction and no relief can be granted to a person, who has not come with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed the correct facts. 15. As regard the ground raised by the petitioner, that although the Appellate Authority had interfered in the disciplinary order with a finding that the allegations levelled in the charge- sheet, were related to direct duties of A.S.I. and not of petitioner himself, yet by moulding the charge, the appellate authority although reduced the penalty, yet maintained penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect instead of clearly exonerating the petitioner, this Court observes that it has not been denied by the petitioner that he was in-charge of police station, and was solely responsible for regulating the investigation and working of the officials working under him. A Mrig report registered in the police station was not investigated in proper manner by the A.S.I., and under such circumstances, the S.H.O., who is in-charge of the police station, cannot shirk from his responsibility and cannot say that he was not responsible for derelictions of duties and irregularity committed by A.S.I. in his control. It was not a charge relating to any personal conduct of A.S.I. over which the petitioner could not have any control, and rather it was part of collective duties of the police station of which petitioner was the in-charge. Hence, under these circumstances, while giving finding that it was supervisory negligence of the petitioner, no error has been committed by the Appellate Authority in maintaining penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. Hence, under these circumstances, while giving finding that it was supervisory negligence of the petitioner, no error has been committed by the Appellate Authority in maintaining penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty cannot be said to be harsh, excessive or disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. 16. This Court in the case of Uma Pareek (supra) , has held as under:- "25. It is significant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying upon its earlier judgments in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 ; Union of India & Another v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, Om Kumar & Others v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 ; Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. & Another, (2007) 4 SCC 669, and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Another. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620 , has authoritatively delineated the contours of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It has been categorically held that High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence, cannot interfere with findings of fact if they are based on some evidence and cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by perversity, illegality or procedural impropriety. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is beyond the scope of judicial review. 26. Similarly, in the case of Union of India & Others v. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that interference with punishment is justified only when the penalty is strikingly disproportionate and even then, the matter should ordinarily be remitted to the disciplinary authority rather than substituting the punishment. 27. 26. Similarly, in the case of Union of India & Others v. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that interference with punishment is justified only when the penalty is strikingly disproportionate and even then, the matter should ordinarily be remitted to the disciplinary authority rather than substituting the punishment. 27. Recently, in the case of Union of India & Others vs Pranab Kumar Nath 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2893 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again emphasised that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not an appellate forum in disciplinary matters and cannot interfere with punishment unless there is substantial non- compliance of statutory rules or settled legal principles." 17. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby dismissed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.