[2026:RJ-JP:142]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12588/2011 Shri Lal Yadav Son of Shri Ram Devji, aged about 62 years, R/o Near Railway Station, Sarari, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Collector, Ajmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote with Mr. Dikshant Jain &

Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary with Ms. Vijay Laxmi on behalf of Mr. Vidyadhar Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

06/01/2026

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against penalty order of dismissal dated 20.08.1991 passed by the Collector (Land Records), Ajmer as well as order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order has been dismissed.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari on 07.09.1968. After rendering services of 19 years, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.10.1987 in contemplation of departmental inquiry. One charge- sheet dated 29.12.1987/31.01.1988 was served upon the petitioner levelling as many as 8 charges against the petitioner and inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958') was proposed. The petitioner did not file any reply to the charge-sheet, thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 22.03.1988. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 31.01.1988 suspension of the petitioner was revoked.

3. Even before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner did not appear and participate in the inquiry proceedings. Under such circumstances, ex-parte inquiry report dated 05.10.1988 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. After receiving the report of Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide notice dated 13.12.1988. Despite service of notice, petitioner did not avail the opportunity, thereafter the second show-cause notice dated 07.09.1990 was issued to the petitioner, however, when the petitioner did not respond, the Disciplinary Authority after concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer passed penalty order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Appellant Authority. However, by the time, the Officer who issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority and he himself decided the appeal filed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4692/1998 before this Court which was decided vide order dated 01.11.2006, wherein the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to hear the matter afresh and to pass order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But simultaneously a finding was also given that this Court did not want to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

4. Feeling aggrieved by such finding, the petitioner approached Division Bench of this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.392/2007 (Shri Lal Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) in which the observations made by learned Single Judge affirming the findings or the view of Disciplinary Authority were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority by restoring the appeal with directions to pass a fresh order without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Bench. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority with a request to decide the appeal afresh which has also been rejected vide order dated

20.07.2009.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have utterly overlooked the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 195