##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 33/2026

Kamlesh Kumar Mathur S/o Shri Late Shri Ganesh Vallabh

Mathur, Aged About 71 Years, R/o 13, Karni Bagh, High Court

Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,

Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Main Building, Bhagwan Das Rd. Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Main Building, Bhagwan Das Rd.

Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary,

Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur

Mr. Udit Mathur

Mr. Kailash Prajapati

Ms. Varsha Paliwal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Mathur with

Mr. Ravi Shanker

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

12/05/2026

1. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated

21.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 whereby, the petitioner

has been inflicted with the penalty with the stoppage of 15%

pension for a period of five years.

2. Assailing its validity, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that while, the enquiry officer has, vide its report dated

19.07.2022, did not find the charge to be proved against him, the

(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 03:30:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 03:45:30 AM)

(2 of 3) [CW-33/2026]

Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings vide letter dated

19.03.2024. Referring to the provisions of Rule 16 (10) A of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1958 (for brevity the Rules of 1958), he would submit that the

note of disagreement was not in consonance with the statutory

provisions contained therein inasmuch as the reasons for

disagreement were not mentioned and therefore, the order

impugned stands vitiated.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the D.O.P. would contend that

the note of disagreement dated 19.03.2024 was in consonance

with the statutory provisions contained under Rule 16 (10) A of

the Rules of 1958.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Rule 16 (10) A of the Rules of 1958 provides as under:-

"The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the

findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of

charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and

record its own findings on such charge if the evidence

on record is sufficient for the purpose and the same to

be forwarded to the Government Servant for his

representation along with a copy of the report of the

inquiry."

7. From a perusal of the note of disagreement dated

19.03.2024, this Court is prima facie satisfied that it is not in tune

with the mandatory requirement under Section 16(10) A inasmuch

as it does not contain the reasons for disagreement with the

enquiry report.

8. In view thereof, the matter requires consideration.

9. Admit.

(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 03:30:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 03:45:30 AM)

(3 of 3) [CW-33/2026]

10 Issue notice to the respondent No.2 and 3 by both process.

11. Heard on stay application.

12. For the reasons observed hereinabove, this Court deems it

just and proper to stay the operation of the order impugned dated

21.08.2025, till further orders.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

8-amit/-

(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 03:30:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 03:45:30 AM)