[2025:RJ-JD:50330]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18597/2025 Omprakash Sharma S/o Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 4-B/40 Tilak Nagar, Near Polytechnic College, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara Rajasthan - 311001.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayati Raj. Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, District Bhilwara Rajasthan.

3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suvana, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/11/2025

1. The petitioner, who was working as Gram Vikas Adhikari, has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved of the charge- sheet dated 22.08.2025 (Annex.4) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara and the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2025 (Annex.3) issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suvana, District Bhilwara, both under Rule 16 of the Rajsthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on multiple legal grounds. At the outset, it is contended that the petitioner has been subjected to two charge-sheets based on identical allegations issued by two different authorities. Specifically, Charge No.1 in the charge-sheet dated 22.08.2025, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, is substantially and verbatim identical to Charge No.2 in the earlier charge-sheet dated 08.05.2025, issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suvana. Both charge-sheets pertain to the same incident, the same factual matrix, and the same alleged misconduct, thereby resulting in parallel and overlapping disciplinary proceedings arising out of an identical cause of action. 3. The petitioner argues that such duplication is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the well-established principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against double jeopardy in departmental proceedings, which prohibits the initiation of multiple inquiries on the same set of allegations without lawful justification. The simultaneous operation of two independent charge-sheets each requiring separate inquiry creates undue harassment, prejudice, and procedural uncertainty for the petitioner.

4. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2025, issued by the Block Development Officer is itself without jurisdiction, as the BDO is not the competent disciplinary authority empowered to initiate departmental proceedings against a Gram Vikas Adhikari under the CCA Rules. It is submitted that the power to issue a charge-sheet, initiate disciplinary action, or impose penalties lies exclusively with the authority designated under the CCA Rules, and the BDO does not fall within the category of such competent authorities. Consequently, the charge-sheet issued by the BDO stands vitiated ab initio.

5. In light of these submissions, it is urged that once an incompetent authority (the BDO) has wrongly initiated proceedings, the subsequent issuance of another charge-sheet on the very same allegations by the CEO without withdrawing, superseding, or consolidating the earlier one demonstrates non- application of mind and constitutes a colourable exercise of power. Therefore, both charge-sheets, being either duplicative or jurisdictionally defective, deserve to be quashed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on the record.

7. The petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suvana and the subsequent charge-sheet dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, both framed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules.

7. A comparative readi