1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 541/2015 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13372/2010 Nagendra Pratihast S/o Panchanand Pratihast, Aged 64 Years, R/o House No. 901-902, Mahavir Nagar-II, Kota-Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Personnel (K-3/Enquiry), Government of Rajasthan-Jaipur. 2. Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv. With Mr. Himanshu Kala, Adv., Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Adv., & Mr. Nripraj Bhati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG, with Ms. Shikha Sharma, AAAG for State HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment Date of conclusion of arguments : 18/03/2026 Date on which judgment was reserved : 18/03/2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2026 (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) 1. The appellant had preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein he stated that he was a regular student of Sanskrit at Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit University, Muzaffurnagar and while learning, he 2 used to travel to Vrindavan, Mathura to teach poor people and students as a part of his religious responsibilities at Shri Ram Krishna Sanskrit College, Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) (which was an organization of religious teaching) in the year 1996. He asserted that he did not charge any fee nor did he receive any remuneration for the same. The appellant pursued his studies as a regular student in the subject of Astrology (Jyotish) and qualified the examinations with first grade in the year 1968 and in the year 1971, he passed Vyakaran Shastra from the same college with first grade. 2. On 22.01.1973, he was appointed as Teacher Gr.-II on temporary basis at Vithal Nath Sanskrit College, Kota. At the time of screening, certificates of teaching experience had been presented, but were not considered for the purpose of appointment as they were found to be from the institutions outside the State which is not recognized by any University or the State body. Appellant was further appointed as Assistant Professor (Astrology). The appointment of the appellant in the aided institution was later on sanctioned by the State Government. 3. It was further stated that he was appointed as Assistant Professor (Astrology) in the year 1980 and was further promoted to the post of Professor. On 12.02.1998, the private college where the appellant was posted as Professor was taken over by the State Government. On 04.12.1999, the Selection Committee of the State Government screened all the eligible candidates and after analyzing the record of the appellant, the Committee selected the appellant on the post of Professor. Thereafter he was further promoted as Principal of the College by the respondents. 3 4. The appellant asserts that an enquiry was conducted solely on the basis of the complaint filed by one unknown person with respect to his educational qualification, wherein, while his educational qualifications were found to be correct, with regard to the experience certificates submitted by him, it was found that they were never utilized for any purpose nor any benefit was given to him. However, the enquiry officer opined that further enquiry to be convened for the experience certificates as they were found to be doubtful and a proposal was made to conduct a regular enquiry. 5. The State Government issued a charge sheet to the appellant on 11.03.2008 wherein, it was stated that while working as Principal at Shri Ram Krishna Sanskrit College, Shri Laxmi Kant Bhawan, Vanshiwat Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) from 01.11.1966 to 21.01.1973, he had acquired educational qualification as regular student in the year 1968 from Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit College, Muzaffarpur under Kameshwar Singh Darbangha Sanksrit University, Bihar, in Jyotish subject with first grade. Further in 1971, the appellant pursued his studies as a regular student and passed ‘Naveen Shastri’ Examination from Radha Krishna Sanskrit College, Mathura. Thus, he had committed serious misconduct while submitting experience certificate of Principal from 01.11.1966 to 21.01.1973, whereas he was studying as a regular student at another place during the said period. 6. In the statement of allegations, it was pointed out that he has shown in his documents, to have been a teacher of Madhyama Classes from 01.11.1966 to 08.07.1967, of Shastri Classes 01.11.1966 to 21.01.1973 and of Acharya from 01.08.1968 to 21.01.1973 in the 4 subject of Jyotish. Thus, the certificate issued from the concerned institute on 01.02.1974 is not valid. 7. He has also placed on record a Certificate issued from the College at Mathura as a regular student in the subject of Vyakaran Shastra, whereas, he was himself the Principal of that particular college in the year 1971 and thus, there was a doubt about his qualifications as well as his experience certificates. 8. As per the departmental enquiry conducted, it was found by the enquiry officer that the charges were proved. Vide order dated 22.09.2010, appellant-writ petitioner was removed from service based on the enquiry report. 9. The appellant preferred a writ petition and challenged the order of removal. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 10. Hence, this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that as far as the experience certificates are concerned which are stated to have been filed by the appellant/petitioner, they were never used to receive any benefit. So far as the educational qualifications are concerned, they were found to be correct and authentic. He submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is based on his own assessment with respect to the age of the appellant and the educational qualifications acquired by him, whereas, the same were never questioned by any authority. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment of removal from service on the basis of experience certificates, which were never utilized and were issued by a religious institution, was very harsh and 5 was not required to have been imposed, especially when the same relate to the private institution where the appellant had been appointed. The appellant became a Government Servant only in the year 1998 when the college where the appellant was posted as Professor of Jyotish Shastra, was taken over by the State Government. Also, the date alleged is for a period prior to his employment in the State Government and the Certificates of experience were issued to him as a token of appreciation for his religious teachings in the charitable institution during the vacations. 13. Learned counsel also submits that the Certificates had not been rejected by the State Government. At the time of screening, the certificates were not considered for the purpose of appointment as they were found to be from other State, therefore, he submits that the services rendered for the department for 37 years ought not have been put to naught. Learned counsel submits that there was no misconduct committed by appellant and therefore, the entire proceedings conducted, whereby he has been removed from service, are bad in law. 14. He relies on the judgment passed in the case of Galaxo Labroratries Vs. Presiding Labour Court, Meerut (1984) 1 SCC 1. He further relies on Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of N.C.T. (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 58, to submit that an accused can only be charged for offence of misconduct if there was a finding of fact that he was guilty of unlawful behaviour in relation of discharge of his duties. He, therefore, submits that it is evident that the appellant who had never taken benefit of the Certificates issued by the institution could not be said to have committed any misconduct. 6 15. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, to submit that ‘misconduct’ must relate to, conduct during service and conduct which is in violation of prescribed duties or discipline of a government servant. The alleged experience certificates pertain to a period prior to the appellant's entry into government service and therefore, he could not have been penalized for possessing these documents. Moreover, the Certificates have been issued for teaching during vacations in a religious institution. Sanskrit at a religious institution could be taught by a person who is not duly qualified and who is undergoing studies. It is not uncommon for students to be teaching in Sanskrit Institutions. The appellant had served the State Government for more than 35 years and there was an unblemished service record. 16. Learned counsel relies on Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1983 (2) SCC 442, to submit that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. He further submits that in the case of Pinky Meena vs. The High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1214, the Supreme Court found that the concerned appellant had obtained a degree of LL.B. and B.Ed. simultaneously which were related to the period prior to being a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in respect of LL.M. degree also, the concerned writ-petitioner had not been a Judicial Officer and was serving as a Teacher Gr.-II and she was not a government servant on the date of interview as she had tendered resignation. 7 18. Further, he submits that in Pawan Parajapati Vs. Union of India, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.873/2023, decided on 27.02.2026 wherein the Rajasthan High Court relied on Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, it was held that the disciplinary action must bear a reasonable nexus with the gravity of the misconduct and cannot be imposed mechanically without considering the mitigating circumstances. 19. Learned counsel also relies on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of CISF Vs. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507 where the penalty of dismissal was found to be excessive and harsh. He also relies on the judgment passed in the case of Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs. BHEL and Another (2014) SCC 182 where the dismissal order served on the appellant just six days prior to his retirement was found to be exorbitant and disproportionate. 20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the appellant had remained posted in Vitthal Nath Sanskrit College, Kota, which was an aided institution from 22.01.1973, on the post of Teacher Gr.-II. He was thereafter posted as Professor in History of Sanskrit Literature, but since the post was not sanctioned at that time, he was posted as a Professor (Astrology) vide order dated 14.01.1981. Subsequently, the institution was merged in the State Government vide order dated 02.12.1999 and several complaints were received towards the entries made in the service record of the appellant regarding educational qualifications, teaching experience, date of birth etc. A departmental enquiry was conducted and his date of birth, educational qualifications and certificates were found to be dubious. 8 The preliminary enquiry report has been placed on record by the respondents. 21. It is further submitted that the services of the appellant were merged with the State Government and vide communication dated 03.07.2007, the matter was, therefore, forwarded for further proceedings under the Rajasthan Civil Services (classification,. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 22. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2330/2004, the High Court passed an order directing conclusion of the enquiry proceedings to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the documents relating to the appellant/petitioner and in compliance thereof, he was served with the charge sheet on 11.03.2008 and Additional Commissioner (Ist) Departmental Enquiry was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted department enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on 24.09.2009 and the same was provided to the petitioner who submitted his response. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and issued order of removal of petitioner from service vide order dated 22.09.2010 and thus, the appellant was removed from service. 23. Learned counsel for the State also submits that during the enquiry proceedings, it was found that while the appellant pursued his studies as a regular student and qualified examinations of Shastri (Astrology), Shastri (Phalit Jyotish), Ancient Acharya and Modern Classical Grammar. The experience certificates were also of the same period of teaching on the post of Principal which could not have been done simultaneously and therefore, it amounts to misconduct. It is submitted that the penalty of removal from service was imposed after 9 considering all the aspects and also looking into the gravity of the charges which does not warrant any interference. 24. Having noticed the submissions, as above, we find that the appellant has been charge-sheeted for having placed on service record the documents relating to having experience of working as a Principal in Shri Ram Krishna Sanskrit College, Vrindavan, Mathura, while he was undergoing regular course of studies at Shri Sitaramiya Sanskrit College, Muzaffarpur under Kameshwar Singh Darbangha Sanksrit University, Bihar during the said period. The appellant has been held guilty of misconduct under the Rules of 1971. The entire basis of chargesheet is misconceived. 25. We are of the view that the experience certificates are not stated to be forged document. 26. The appellant asserts that he was teaching during vacations and an experience certificate has been given to him for the said purpose. Since the same has not been, in any manner, connected with his service, nor it has been utilized for the purpose of appointment or promotion or for any other purpose, the document of experience certificate would have no relevance and therefore, the same cannot be used to initiate departmental enquiry. 27. We find that the entire process of departmental proceedings was initiated on the basis of a complaint which was anonymous. 28. We also notice that the appointment of the appellant was in a private institution which was getting aid from the State Government. The educational qualifications of the appellant have not been found to be forged. The same have been the basis for giving him further promotion from time to time and at the time when the charge sheet 10 was issued, he was holding the post of Principal of the Government College. The Enquiry Officer has proceeded and relied on a preliminary enquiry report which was not conducted with the participation of the appellant and is based on suspicion. 29. Law in this regard is well settled. Suspicion cannot take place of conclusive proof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanand Alias Nandlal Bharti vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 510 regarding departmental enquiries, recently has held that the Court while examining the enquiry proceedings, may also look into the facts of the case and see whether the entire allegations can be said to be sufficient to hold that the person has committed a misconduct. 30. Once we have reached to the conclusion, as above, that no misconduct was committed by the appellant, there was no misconduct found to have been committed which can be said to be a basis of initiating of charge sheet. The entire proceedings would stand vitiated. 31. We also notice that it is a case where presumptions have taken place of probability of misconduct based on suspicions. 32. We also notice that there is no allegation of having committed any delinquency during the service period by the appellant. 33. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the appellant, as noticed above, would, therefore, have application to the case. 34. In Surendra Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 8 SCC 536, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “9.There was no charge against the appellant that he had in any way aided or abetted the offence under Section 392 IPC or that he knew that his son had stolen the car and yet 11 he did not inform the police. The appellant, as we have held, was guilty of negligence of not having enquired from his son about the car kept in front of the government quarters occupied by him. The appellant had served the Government as a Constable and thereafter as a Head Constable from 7-8-1971 till he was dismissed from service on 28-2-2005 i.e. for 34 years, and for such long service he had earned pension. In our considered opinion, the punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service so as to deprive him of his pension for the service that he had rendered for 34 long years was shockingly disproportionate to the negligence proved against him. 10.We accordingly, allow this appeal in part and modify the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. The LPA and the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.” 35. In Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India 1987(4) SCC 611, the Apex Court passed the following order: “25.Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the “decision- making process”. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v.Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL) : (1984) 3 All ER 935, 950] Lord Diplock said: “Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the 12 future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community;. . .” 36. In Pinky Meena (supra) under almost similar circumstances, where action was taken against the delinquent on the basis of a complaint filed by another person, she was discontinued on account of having obtained LL.B. and B.Ed. degrees simultaneously, which related to a period prior to her joining as a judicial officer. The Supreme Court observed as under: “17.This Court has carefully gone through the show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 issued to the appellant and a bare perusal of the same establishes that misconduct, if any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously relates to the service period prior to being a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in respect of LL.M. degree also, she was not a Judicial Officer and she was serving as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan. So far as the allegation with regarding to suppression of material information regarding past government service, the appellant submitted resignation on 25.10.2018 from the post of Teacher Grade-II and on the date of interview i.e. on 02.11.2018, she was required to furnish certain information as per the check list and it is a fact that on the date of interview, she was no longer a government servant as she had tendered her resignation and in those circumstances, there is certainly an omission on the part of the appellant in not mentioning about her past record of government service. 23.This Court has carefully gone through the aforementioned statutory provision of law which deals with employment by irregular or improper means. In the present case, at the best, it can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the employer about her past government service. Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission).” 37. In Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 560, it was held as under: 13 “14.Thus, the present one is a case wherein we are satisfied that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but is also one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal from service and instead direct the appellant to be reinstated in service subject to the condition that the period during which the appellant remained absent from duty and the period calculated up to the date on which the appellant reports back to duty pursuant to this judgment shall not be counted as a period spent on duty. The appellant shall not be entitled to any service benefits for this period. Looking at the nature of partial relief allowed hereby to the appellant, it is now not necessary to pass any order of punishment in the departmental proceedings in lieu of the punishment of removal from service which has been set aside. The appellant must report on duty within a period of six weeks from today to take benefit of this judgment.” 38. We concur with the view taken by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as above. 39. In view of the above, we allow this Special Appeal and set aside the order of removal dated 22.09.2010, holding that the appellant–writ petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. However, since the order of removal was passed on 22.09.2010 and the appellant has not performed duties thereafter, and may have attained the age of superannuation by now, we direct that the appellant shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service. However, he shall be entitled only to notional benefits of service from 22.09.2010 up to the date of his retirement, along with all actual retiral and pensionary benefits under the relevant rules to which he is statutorily entitled thereafter. The arrears of pension and other retiral benefits shall be paid to him @ 9% 14 per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The necessary exercise shall be conducted within a period of two months. 40. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Govind/