Order

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner assailed validity, legality and propriety of charge-sheet dated 10.10.2025 issued by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Contgrol & Appeal) Rules, 1958, leveling as many as three charges against the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that charges in the charge-sheet are related to FIR, which was lodged in the year 2019, pursuant to which, charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner, being Investigating Officer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not the only Investigating Officer and in pursuance of FIR, so many other persons were also indulged in investigation. Learned counsel submits that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was prepared by the petitioner and was placed before the higher authority for their approval therefore, in case, there was any mistake in the charge-sheet, the same could have been rectified under the directions of the higher authority but, even the higher authority also approved the charge-sheet prepared by the petitioner and accordingly, the same was filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even the Competent Criminal Court accepted charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner and therefore, under these circumstances, where petitioner is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2026, instituting disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at the fag end of his service career is nothing but a device to harass and victimize the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has also filed reply to the charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings categorically denying all the charges leveled in the memorandum of charge-sheet. Enquiry pursuant to charge-sheet would take considerably long time and in the meanwhile, since the petitioner is retiring on 30.04.2026, therefore, pendency of disciplinary enquiry shall also cause prejudice to the petitioner in the manner that post retiral benefits shall not be granted to the petitioner on the pretext of pendency of disciplinary enquiry.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that scope of interference in disciplinary enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very-very limited and, merits and demerits of the charges leveled in the charge-sheet cannot be examined at the stage where, the Enquiry Officer is yet to conduct enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that serious misconduct has been committed by the petitioner and there was apparent dereliction of duties in not filing the charge-sheet under the proper provision before the Competent Court as well as there was deliberate over implication of the accused without there being any prima facie evidence against all the accused.

6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner shall be granted complete opportunity to defend the charges and the enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. This Court is mindful of the limitation of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary enquiry and particularly in a petition filed at the initial stage of issuance of memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.

9. Initiation of disciplinary enquiry by serving charge-sheet can be challenged only on limited grounds, where from bare perusal of statement of allegations appended to the charge-sheet do not make out any misconduct whatsoever; and in the case where the petitioner has come out with a case that charge-sheet issuing authority was not competent to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. There can also be a possible ground that the charges leveled against the petitioner in memorandum of charge-sheet are