[2025:RJ-JD:39036-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1107/2025 Tara Chand Kuldeep S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram Kuldeep, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 429, Subhash Nagar-A, Opp. Mill Gate, Kurdiya Niwas, District- Pali (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, The Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Chief Engineer And Additional Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jal Bhawan, 2 - Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Chief Engineer (Urban And New), Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jal Bhawan, 2 - Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Pali (Raj.)

5. The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur-I, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Chundawat HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

Reportable

28/08/2025

1. The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14523/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner–appellant was dismissed .

2. Mr. Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, notices dated 01.07.2025 and 20.07.2025 were issued to him calling for his explanation on certain allegations.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the safeguard contained in Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules of 1996”) ought to have been applied in the present case. Rule 7(2)(b) read with Rule 7(6) clearly stipulates that no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired Government servant except with the prior sanction of the Governor. Under Rule 7(6)(a), departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with the statement of allegations are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or on the date on which a proposal of the Government to take disciplinary action along with the allegations is issued. Where a Government servant has been placed under suspension at an earlier point of time, the date of suspension is treated as the date of institution. Similarly, Rule 7(6)(b) defines when judicial proceedings are deemed to be instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon para no.13 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1235, which reads as under:-

“13. The learned counsel for the appellant is right when he submitted that show cause notice was issued to the respondent-employee on January 13, 2000 when he was very much in service. The respondent submitted his explanation on January 15, 2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Corporation on January 31, 2000 and was served upon the respondent-employee on the same day. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on February 11, 2000. But it is clear from the documents that show cause notice was issued and replied. A regular show cause notice as to departmental inquiry was also served upon the respondent- employee on the last day of his service which was January 31, 2000. In our opinion, therefore, it could not be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent-

employee after he retired from service.”

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned notices are merely preliminary in nature and were issued only to ascertain whether a case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings exists. They cannot be equated with a c