HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21811/2025 Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Bamrala, Tehsil Sedava, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Board Of Revenue, Through Its Registrar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. The District Collector, Jalore, Office Of The District Collector, Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur.

Mr. Harshwardhan Thanvi.

Mr. Udit Mathur.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

11/11/2025

1. Heard on the interim stay application.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 (Annex.22) issued by the Deputy Registrar (Inquiry), Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the appointing authority/disciplinary authority is the Chairman of the Board. As such, the impugned notice has been issued by the incompetent authority which is contrary to Rule 16(10) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’).

4. The other argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 requires that if the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, on receipt of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority is required to give its findings on each charge. He also further argued that such findings have to be communicated to the petitioner along with the inquiry report and then only, he is required to submit his representation. After such representation, fresh orders are required to be passed.

5. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, as per the Rules of Rajathan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1956’), the appointing authority of the service of Tehsildar is the Chairman of the Board of Revenue and Rules of 1956 do not say that the Board of Revenue is the appointing authority. The charge-sheet was also issued by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue and the impugned notice was issued through Deputy Registrar (Inquiry) of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which is not in consonance with the requirements of the Rules.

6. So far the second argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, if the argument is accepted, this would amount to seeking explanation post finding which makes explanation redundant. The intention of the provision is that the explanation is required to be made on the findings of the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority required to consider explanation while giving findings on each charge. Therefore, the said argument prima facie is not appelable.

7. The other reason is that there is no requirement under the Rules of 1958 that the findings of the disciplinary authority along with the inquiry report have to be given to the petitioner while seeking his explanation. There is no constitutional requirement or the requirement under the Rules of 1958 that at the stage of imposition of penalty, the delinquent officer is required to be heard.

8. Further, if the explanation is sought after giving findings by the disciplinary authority, such explanation would amount relevant for re-consideration of the findings which action amounts review of its findings. The said arguments is noted and is rejected.

9. In the result, there shall be a stay on the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 (Annex.22).

10. However, the present stay order will not come in the way of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to seek explanation on the inquiry report and give its own findings and conclude the disciplinary proceedings based on the inquiry report and explanation, if any, submitted by the delinquent officer. The inquiry report is already in possession of the delinquent officer and there is no need