[2026:RJ-JD:12920]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24012/2025 Dashrath Chavala S/o Shri Lala Ram Chavala, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Jag, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

2. The Director General (Prisons), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

3. The Inspector General, Jail Range, Jaipur-Kota-Ajmer Range, Udaipur, Raj.

4. The Superintendent Of District Jail, Tonk (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

18/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20358/2018 (decided on

05.12.2022).

2. In Raghuveer Singh’s case (supra), the Court observed and held as under:-

“38. On bare reading of Rule 14, it is clear that while framing the rules the rule framers were of the opinion that the Government servant can be imposed with the penalty of either(I) ‘Censure’, or (II) ‘Withholding Annual Grade Increment’ or‘ Withholding Promotion’. The language of the said rule clearly speaks that rule framers were of the view that while in case of imposing penalty of ‘withholding annual grade increment’, the same itself will not adversely affect the avenue of promotion, if the Government servant is otherwise found suitable. The rule framers while incorporating the penalty of ‘withholding annual grade increment’ or ‘withholding promotion’ with a specific intention used the word “or” in between ‘withholding annual grade increment’ and ‘withholding promotion’. By using word “or” the intention of the rule framers is very clear that in case of imposing penalty of ‘withholding annual grade increment’ their intention is not to withhold the promotion avenue of the Government servant merely on account of penalty. Withholding annual grade increment and withholding promotion are different kinds of penalties which may be imposed upon Government servant. Meaning thereby, if penalty of ‘withholding annual grade increment’ is imposed on a Government servant, that cannot be termed to be a penalty of ‘withholding promotion’ also.

On consideration of the provisions of the Rules this Court is of the view that rule framers were not having intention to withhold the promotion of a Government servant merely on account of imposing penalty of ‘Censure’ or ‘Withholding the annual grade increment’. If that would have been the intention of the rule framers they would have mentioned in the Rule 14 as ‘withholding annual grade increment’ and ‘withholding promotion’ but they have mentioned the penalty as ‘withholding annual grade increment’ “or” ‘withholding promotion’. 39. In view of the discussions made above, this Court safely can held that withholding promotion for a Government servant on account of imposition of penalty of ‘Censure’ or ‘withholding increment’ is illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and therefore the Circular issued by the respondent- State in this regard disasters to be set aside.

40…… 41….. 42….. 43…..

44. So considering the provisions of Rules and the law laid down in various judgments, as referred above, this Court can safely held that the Circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel to the extent of depriving the Government servants from consideration for promotion in case of criteria for promotion being Seniority- Cum-Merit on account of penalty of ‘Censure’ or withholding increments, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

45. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 30.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and also the order