[2025:RJ-JP:52010]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11468/2014 Shri Madan Lal, S/o Shri Mukataya, since deceased

1/1 Smt. Rameshwari Wife Of Late Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 53 Years.

1/2 Sanju Daughter Of Late Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 29 Years.

1/3 Anju Daughter Of Late Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 27 Years All R/o Behind Patni Bhawan, Madangunj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus

1. Municipal Corporation of Kishangarh, Ajmer through Commissioner.

2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Kishangarh, Ajmer.

2. Chief Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation Of Kishangarh, Ajmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg with Mr. Pranjal &

Ms. Disha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.K. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

Arguments concluded on ::: November 19, 2025 Reserved on ::: November 19, 2025 Pronounced on ::: January 19, 2026

1. The petitioner- Shri Madan Lal by filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has made a challenge to the order dated 09.10.2013 (Annex.2)

issued under the signatures of the Commissioner, Nagar Parisad Kishangarh, by which the petitioner has been dismissed (removed) from service.

2. Since the original petitioner- Shri Madan Lal has passed away, the benefits accruing from this order, shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner- Shri Madan Lal was initially appointed as a Class IV in the respondent department on 07.12.1973. The petitioner was said to have witnessed a prolonged and bitter family dispute in his later part of entire life, which had completely shattered him emotionally and psychologically. The petitioner proceeded on an unsanctioned leave from 01.01.2011 to March 2011, which resulted into issuing a show-cause-notice dated 25.03.2011 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause-notice on 31.03.2011. The respondent department being dissatisfied with the reply to the show-cause-notice dated 31.03.2011, issued a notice dated 27.04.2011 under Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. On 03.05.2004 the petitioner in response to the aforesaid notice submitted an application/ reply to the notice before the respondent authority with the request that he shall not commit such mistake in future.

On 01.06.2011 the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 by which he sought voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 01.09.2011 mainly on the ground of prolonged ill-health and continuous family dispute. The service career of the petitioner for 29 years remained unblemished.

The respondent-department dissatisfied with the reply to the notice dated 27.04.2011, issued a memorandum of charges along-with charge-sheet on 07.07.2011 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'Rule of 1958'). The application submitted by the petitioner on 01.06.2011 seeking voluntarily retirement was dismissed on the ground that the inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 is under cotemplation.

The petitioner on 17.08.2011 submitted reply to the charges levelled against him. On 30.04.2012 the Inquiry Committee submitted its report and found the charges proved against the petitioner. Vide order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure-12), the respondent-Authority dismissed (removed) the petitioner from service. The petitioner aggrieved with the order of dismissal (removal) dated

09.10.2013 has preferred this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner abandoning to challenge the punishment order on its merit and has limited his challenge to the extent that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner i.e. removal from service for the allegation of willful absence from the duty is disproportionate and is very harsh and to alter the same. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner in reply to the notice tendered