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-shee