Awaiting posting status under service rules is an administrative measure for pay continuity in specified contingencies and cannot be invoked as a substitute for formal disciplinary proceedings, nor as a punitive tool to circumvent established procedures for addressing employee misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 29.10.2025 placing him under “Awaiting Posting Orders” (APO) has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 29.10.2025 whereby the petitioner was relieved from the post of Block Chief Medical Officer, Chiwara, Jhunjhunu to join his duties in the office of Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan Headquarter Jaipur.

2. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer and after completion of probation, was transferred from time to time. Since 23.02.2024, he was posted as Block Chief Medical Officer, Chirawa. It is the case of the petitioner that despite a subsisting ban on transfers imposed by the State Government, he was abruptly placed under APO vide order dated 29.10.2025 without assigning any reasons, in order to circumvent the rigour of the ban and was thereafter relieved on the same day, vide order dated 29.10.2025 to join his duties in the office of Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan Headquarter Jaipur.

3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal primarily on the grounds that the APO order was violative of Rule 25A of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 (for short “the RSR”), and that the action was taken to accommodate private respondent. It was further contended that such an order could not have been passed during the currency of a transfer ban.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents themselves admitted in their reply before the Tribunal that the APO order was passed on the basis of allegations and proposed disciplinary action. According to the petitioner, such recourse is impermissible in law, inasmuch as disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “CCA Rules, 1958”) and cannot be bypassed by invoking Rule 25A of the RSR. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal without properly appreciating the facts and law.

5. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned orders. It is contended that the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order after due consideration of the material on record and no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the APO order was necessitated due to several complaints against the petitioner alleging misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty. Multiple departmental enquiries have been initiated against the petitioner and in order to ensure a fair and uninfluenced enquiry, while passing APO order, the petitioner was directed to report at the Directorate at Jaipur.

6. Shri Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned APO order is malicious and has been passed in colourable exercise of power and not for administrative exigency, but to circumvent the safeguards provided under the CCA Rules, 1958. It is submitted that once allegations of misconduct are made, the only legally permissible course is to in