1. Challenge to two charge-sheets issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 against a Principal; preliminary enquiry conducted. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 647
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2026
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Important Points
A charge-sheet issued by the appointing authority cannot be challenged in a writ petition before the employee files a reply, unless the authority is incompetent or statutory rules are violated. Administrative circulars do not override statutory rules regarding disciplinary procedures.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.16
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Competence of disciplinary authority - Appointing authority is competent to issue charge-sheet under relevant disciplinary rules; challenge to competence is untenable if the issuing authority is the appointing authority. (Para 6)
(B) Administrative Circulars vs. Statutory Rules - No statutory rule mandates the procedure of issuing a show cause notice prior to the issuance of a charge-sheet - Any circular not in consonance with statutory rules is not mandatory in nature. (Para 7)
(C) Challenge to Charge-sheet - Writ petition generally does not lie against a charge-sheet unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings or is against statutory rules - Delinquent employee must submit a reply before the disciplinary authority before seeking quashing of the charge-sheet to avoid the petition being premature. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
A Principal of a school challenged two charge-sheets issued under Rule 16 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958. The petitioner contended that the charge-sheets were issued by an incompetent authority, that a mandatory preliminary enquiry and show cause notice as per an administrative circular were not provided, and that two separate proceedings for the same cause were initiated to harass and victimize the employee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issuing authority was the appointing authority of the petitioner and thus competent. It held that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules, and since no statutory rule required a show cause notice prior to a charge-sheet, there was no irregularity. The court also noted that the charge-sheets related to different incidents and that the challenge was premature because the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the charge-sheets.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheets were issued by a competent authority, whether a prior show cause notice was mandatory based on an administrative circular, and whether a charge-sheet can be challenged in court before the employee files a reply to the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointing authority is inherently competent to issue a charge-sheet. Statutory rules prevail over administrative circulars. A writ petition challenging a charge-sheet is premature if the delinquent has not first submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority, unless the challenge is based on the clear incompetence of the authority or a violation of statutory rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Administrative Circulars vs. Statutory Rules - No statutory rule mandates the procedure of issuing a show cause notice prior to the issuance of a charge-sheet - Any circular not in consonance with statutory rules is not mandatory in nature. (Para 7)
(C) Challenge to Charge-sheet - Writ petition generally does not lie against a charge-sheet unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings or is against statutory rules - Delinquent employee must submit a reply before the disciplinary authority before seeking quashing of the charge-sheet to avoid the petition being premature. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
A Principal of a school challenged two charge-sheets issued under Rule 16 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958. The petitioner contended that the charge-sheets were issued by an incompetent authority, that a mandatory preliminary enquiry and show cause notice as per an administrative circular were not provided, and that two separate proceedings for the same cause were initiated to harass and victimize the employee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issuing authority was the appointing authority of the petitioner and thus competent. It held that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules, and since no statutory rule required a show cause notice prior to a charge-sheet, there was no irregularity. The court also noted that the charge-sheets related to different incidents and that the challenge was premature because the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the charge-sheets.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheets were issued by a competent authority, whether a prior show cause notice was mandatory based on an administrative circular, and whether a charge-sheet can be challenged in court before the employee files a reply to the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointing authority is inherently competent to issue a charge-sheet. Statutory rules prevail over administrative circulars. A writ petition challenging a charge-sheet is premature if the delinquent has not first submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority, unless the challenge is based on the clear incompetence of the authority or a violation of statutory rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gouttam, Mr. G.S. Gouttam with Ms. Sakshi Meena, Ms. Arati Bai Meena
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gouttam, Mr. G.S. Gouttam with Ms. Sakshi Meena, Ms. Arati Bai Meena
Table of Contents
2. Charge-sheets by incompetent authority; no show-cause after preliminary enquiry; two charge-sheets for same incident; representation undecided. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Appointing authority can issue charge-sheet; no statutory pre-charge notice; incidents distinct; writ premature without reply. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Charge-sheet cannot be challenged without filing reply unless issued by incompetent authority or against statutory rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as premature; liberty to raise all grounds in reply to charge-sheet; no opinion on merits. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. Can a charge-sheet be challenged before filing a reply?
No, a charge-sheet cannot be challenged without filing a reply unless issued by incompetent authority or against statutory rules. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Is a show-cause notice mandatory before issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules?
No, there is no statutory rule mandating such notice; a non-statutory circular cannot impose a mandatory requirement. (Para 7 )
8. Who is competent to issue a charge-sheet under disciplinary rules?
The appointing authority is competent to issue a charge-sheet under relevant disciplinary rules. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging two separate charge-sheets dated 25.03.2025 & 16.04.2025 issued by Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan in the capacity of disciplinary authority under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
2. While pressing his challenge to charge-sheet, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been issued by Incompetent Authority as the petitioner is holding the post of Principal in Senior Secondary School, which is post of the State service and therefore, only the State Government and not the Director can issue charge-sheet to the petitioner.
3. In addition to above, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per DOP circular dated 23.05.2002, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry before issuing any charge-sheet and the delinquent should also be given opportunity before issuing charge-sheet on the basis of findings of preliminary enquiry. Learned counsel submits that despite, clear cut guidelines given by Department of Personnel, blindly relying upon the findings of preliminary enquiry, chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel also submits that two different charge- sheets have been issued against the petitioner in quite malicious manner whereas, the incidents referred in the charge-sheets related to one and the same cause and thus, only to harass and victimize the petitioner, the respondents have initiated two different disciplinary enquiries, which is causing serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that although, he has given representation in the light of order dated 02.02.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1665/2024) yet, the respondents could not decide his representation whereas, the State Government itself has issued one circular dated 19.02.2024 directing all concerned for deciding the representation in the light of aforesaid order dated 02.02.2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. First submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been issued by an incompetence authority; however it has been admitted by the learned counsel petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Principal by the order issued by Director, Secondary Education. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner is the appointing authority of the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that appointing authority can issue charge- sheet under the relevant disciplinary rules hence, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising objection with regard to competence of disciplinary authority is totally misconceived and is not tenable in the eye of law.
7. Learned counsel also argued that before issuing charge-sheet, pursuant to circular issued by DOP, the petitioner was entitled for show cause notice on the basis of findings of preliminary enquiry however, it has not been done. As a matter of fact, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued while exercising powers under rule 16 of the Rule of 1958. This Court finds that there is no statutory rule mandating procedure of issuing any show cause notice prior to issuance of charge-sheet, therefore, any circular which is not in consonance of statutory rule, is not mandatory in nature. Hence, no mistake whatsoever has been done by the respondents by not issuing any prior notice before serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although, two different charge-sheets have been issued, yet the subject matter qua charge-sheets relate to same incident whereas, bare perusal of the charge-sh
