[2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 349/2019 The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel (A-III), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Appellant Versus Moola Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Dayala Ramji, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Col.III/2, Colonisation Colony, J.N. Vyas Nagar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)-

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

22/01/2026

1. The appellant-State has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition filed by the respondent petitioner (hereinafter referred as petitioner) whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 02.01.1996 and 06.03.1999 were quashed and the petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Sankalp Vijay, appeared on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that while the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Chatargarh No. 1, under the office of the Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, he was issued a show-cause notice dated 09.09.1983 in respect of an order passed by him on 15.05.1979 in six files relating to alleged trespass by certain villagers. Subsequently, the petitioner dropped the proceedings by allowing the review petitions filed in respect of those orders. Thereafter, for the above conduct, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 17.10.1985 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge- sheet, which pertained to matters which were more than six years old. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority; however, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, by order dated 20.10.1986, held the petitioner guilty of the charges as levelled against him and imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order dated 20.10.1986 was put to challenge by the petitioner by way of statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and quashed the punishment order dated 20.10.1986 vide its order dated 12.08.1988.

5. The appellate authority, while allowing the appeal, directed the appellant-State authorities to consider the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Bikaner, and to pass the necessary orders in accordance with law. In terms of that, the petitioner again, as directed, submitted his reply denying charges, however, the matter remained pending for long period and thereafter, it was decided to hold enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16(4) of CCA Rules, for which, vide order dated 12.04.1989, the Additional Commissioner II, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of appointing the Enquiry Officer dated 12.04.1989 was subsequently cancelled pursuant to a disagreement note dated 23.03.1994, whereafter, the petitioner was again asked to submit his explanation. It is after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 13.07.1995, the disciplinary authority once again held the petitioner guilty of charges and was punished him again with the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

7. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition under the Rules of 1958, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.03.1999.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that, despite the fact that the authorities of the appellant twice considered the case of the petitioner and granted sufficient opportunity