[2025:RJ-JD:36032]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13452/2025 Mukesh Kumar S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No. 3, F-27, Ridhi Sidhi- 8, Purani Abadi, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Additional Director, Local Self Government Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Bodies Department, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board Kesrisinghpur, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Monal Chugh for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/08/2025

1. The present writ petition was listed on 08.08.2025 and the petition was allowed by a verbal order.

2. However, while dictating the order in the chamber, the Court thought it appropriate to get the query regarding Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1958’) clarified.

Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed in the ‘to be mentioned’ category and hence, the matter has been listed today.

3. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(i) The Memorandum of Charges as well as the Charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 (Annex-8), issued by respondent no. 4 an all consequential proceedings initiate thereafter, may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The initiation of disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 issued by respondent no. 4 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The inspection report dated 22.04.2025 (Annex- 7), may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issue in favour of the petitioners.

(v) Costs may kindly be awarded.

4. Counsel for the petitioner raised the sole ground that charge sheet dated 23.04.2025 (Annex.8) has been issued by an incompetent Authority and hence, the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide the said charge sheet stand vitiated.

5. Counsel submits that as per Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 the charges are essentially to be framed by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1958 shall either be the head of the Department or the person empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government. Herein, the Executive Officer not being the Head of the Department or the person empowered, is not an authority competent to frame/issue charge sheet in terms of Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the fact that the Executive Officer is neither the Head of the Department nor the person delegated the power or authority in terms of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958.

7. He further submits that an alternate remedy of an appeal in terms of Section 335 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2009’) is available to the petitioner and hence, the present petition ought to be dismissed on this count alone.

8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

9. In view of the admitted position that the Executive Officer of the Municipality is not a competent authority in terms of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958 qua the officer of subordinate ministerial services, the charge-sheet dated 23.04.2025 (Annex.8) is clearly issued by an incompetent authority. The same therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. So far as the availability of an alternate remedy is concerned, evidently, the