[2026:RJ-JP:14911]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9720/2025 Dr. Brij Ballabh Sharma S/o Shri Sua Lal Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of 4, Civil Lines, Near Collectors Residence, Jhalawar, Rajasthan. Retired As Dy. Director, Prosecution, Kota.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Prosecution, Department Of Home (Group-10), State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director (Pension), Department Of Pension, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana Mr. Yash Nandwana Mr. G.V. Chauhan Mr. Savyasachi Puri Ms. Yashsvi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

09/04/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard on final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by memorandum of charges dated 10.03.2008 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958"), subsequent proceedings altering the proceedings under Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and also the appointment of an enquiry officer by proceedings dated 01.05.2025.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-I in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aklera, Jhalawar. The duration of his work was from 13.07.1994 to 01.08.1995. It is alleged in the memorandum of charges, which is impugned, that the petitioner has committed misconduct on four counts: first, wrong mention of dates of filing of challan in the register; second, wrong mention of the date of disposal of the cases pending in the Courts; third, the dates of sending back the files were kept empty; and fourth, the annual verification of the pending and disposed of cases was not furnished. Those allegations relate to the act or omission done in maintaining the register which the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is required to maintain. The said initial proceedings were initiated in the year 2008, that too on the verge of retirement, by proceedings dated 10.03.2008 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2010. Just before the retirement of the petitioner, a notice dated 05.05.2010 was issued proposing to alter the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. This conversion was based on the alleged perception of the disciplinary authority that the conduct alleged in the earlier memorandum of charges was of a grievous nature. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 01.05.2025, the enquiry officer was appointed.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire action is a motivated one and it is a result of vengeful conduct on the part of the disciplinary authority. According to him, the obligation to maintain the register was cast upon the clerk who was assigned to the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and it is not the duty of the Assistant Public Prosecutor to make the entries in the register. There is no such obligation cast either in the duty chart or under the Rules by which his services were governed. It is his further grievance that, even though the allegations are of a trivial nature, those allegations were drawn as if there was grave misconduct and the enquiry was altered from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 only to deny the reaping of retiral benefits and delay the benefit which the petitioner was entitled to get on retirement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the initial enquiry is also vitiated for the reason that the enquiry was done in the year 2008 for the events which occurred in the year 1994-95 i.e. after an inordinate delay of almost 13 years, which itself is a demon