HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9839/2021

Ms. Manju D/o Shri Budha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Caste

Vishnoi, R/o Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Jaleli Ahicha, Post Jaleli

Faujdaran, Tehsil And District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Hall Teacher

Grade-Ii, At Govt. Upper Primary School, Baniyawas, Tehsil Luni,

District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Dy. Secretary,

Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,

Jaipur.

2.

The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,

Bikaner.

3.

The Joint Director, Department Of Education, Jodhpur

Zone, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4.

The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary

Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

5.

The Chief Block Education Officer (Cbeo), Panchayat

Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Deepak Chandak for

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

Mr. Akash Goyal for

Mr. Pravej Moyal

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

07/09/2021

1.

Precise facts appertain in the present writ petition are that,

petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I,

pursuant to application form filed on 20.11.2017, whereafter she

had joined the services on 19.02.2019.

2.

The petitioner had got married on 06.02.2017, admittedly

before submitting her application form.

(2 of 4)

[CW-9839/2021]

3.

While joining the services, petitioner was asked to submit

two affidavits, one in relation to her marital status and another

was to the effect that she will neither give nor accept dowry while

marrying.

4.

For the reasons best known, the petitioner showed herself to

be unmarried in the affidavit she had filed and similarly in another

affidavit she undertook that she will neither give nor accept the

dowry.

5.

Later on, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated

02.07.2021 to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules’) upon the complaint

filed by her husband.

6.

By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has

challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet and memorandum of

charges enclosed therewith.

7.

Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited

Court’s attention towards both the affidavits, filed as Annex.5, and

pointed out that the first affidavit, which was in relation to her

being unmarried, was submitted by the petitioner on a printed

format and due to inadvertence, she signed and indicated herself

to be unmarried.

8.

It was submitted that the affidavit in relation to petitioner’s

marriage was though an incorrect affidavit, but the same was filed

bonafidely, without any intention to deceive the respondents,

inasmuch as the factum of petitioner’s marital status was

inconsequential.

9.

Learned counsel argued that the petitioner being a daughter

has not accepted any dowry, and any dowry if given, was given by

(3 of 4)

[CW-9839/2021]

her father at the time of her marriage. Hence, no action can be

taken against the petitioner, much less an enquiry under Rule 16

of the CCA Rules.

10.

It is informed by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner has filed a

reply to the memorandum of charges/notice issued to the

petitioner and if the enquiry continues against her under Rule 16

of the CCA Rules, it would not only attract major punishment but

also cause undue harassment and mental pressure to the

petitioner.

11.

Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the respondents, on the

other hand, argued that the petitioner had knowingly filed false

affidavits and this very fact calls for disciplinary enquiry against

her. Justifying respondents’ action of initiating enquiry against the

petitioner, learned counsel highlighted that accepting and giving

dowry is a disqualification in getting appointment.

12.

It was also argued that the petition is pr