##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15055]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13837/2025 Sawai Singh S/o Shri Chandan Singh, Aged About 50 Years,

Resident Of Villager Mehareri Tehsil Fatehgarh District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Raj., Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Raj., Jaipur.

3. The Inspector Genreal Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

4. The District Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indu Shekhar Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati with

Mr. Paramvir Singh for Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

02/04/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 02.06.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, whereby on account of pendency of disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and till completion of departmental inquiry, headquarter of the petitioner was changed and he was directed to report in the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Nachna till further orders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the departmental inquiry, however, the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 for changing the headquarter of the petitioner by referring pendency of departmental inquiry, has been issued in the manner as if, a punitive action has been taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that it is a matter of fact that the petitioner has

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 10:18:15 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:03:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15055] (2 of 3) [CW-13837/2025] been served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’), yet there is no provision either under the Rules of 1958 or any other statutory rules for changing the headquarter of the incumbent during the pendency of the inquiry. Learned counsel submits that admittedly, at no point of time, petitioner has

been placed under suspension.

3. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, petitioner is suffering from serious heart problem and is still under the treatment of medical experts. Learned counsel indicates that by appreciating such submissions, vide order dated 24.07.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim order in his favour and directed the respondents not to relieve the petitioner pursuant to impugned order. By virtue of such interim order dated 24.07.2025, the petitioner is till continuing at the same place, where he was working prior to issuance of impugned order dated

02.06.2025.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that bare perusal of the charge-sheet dated 02.06.2025 would make it clear that the petitioner is indulged in serious misconduct and, in case, he is kept at the same place, he may cause interference in conducting fair and impartial inquiry and the possibility of influencing the witnesses as well as tampering with the record cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, impugned order dated 02.06.2025 has been passed by the respondents on account of administrative exigencies and no interference in such order is

required.

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 10:18:15 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:03:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15055] (3 of 3) [CW-13837/2025] 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. It is a matter of fact that petitioner has never been placed under suspension, despite there being issuance of charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and it is also an undisputed fact that by virtue of interim order dated 24.07.2025, the petitioner is still continuing at the same place, where he was

working prior to issuance of impugned order dated 02.06.2025.

7. Under these circumstances, where the petitioner has also shown his personal