[2025:RJ-JP:30307] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2687/2011 Smt. Sabiya Bano Wife of Shri Shouket Mohammad Pathan Aged About 48 Years, R/o of F-162, Malarn Subhash Nagar, Opposite Mansapura Balaji Temple, Near UIT, Bhilwara Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Pr. Secretary, Department of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Dy. Secretary (Gr. II), Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Director, Secondary Board of Education, Bikaner 4. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education-I), Bhilwara ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria assisted by Mr. Arihant Samdaria For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 06/08/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.05.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority-the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner whereby, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred thereagainst and the order dated 05.05.2010 dismissing the review petition preferred by the petitioner. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner-a Headmistress, was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) [2025:RJ-JP:30307] (2 of 5) [CW-2687/2011] Rules, 1958 vide memorandum dated 08.07.2005 wherein, it was alleged that she was transferred vide order dated 24.08.2005 (correct date 24.08.2004) from Gulmandi (Bhilwara) to Maulasar (Nagaur) and came to be relieved on 14.12.2004 on account of introduction of Model Code of Conduct but, she did not join till 22.04.2005 at the transferred place. After considering the reply submitted by her and the material on record, the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was inflicted vide order dated 24.05.2006 which was unsuccessfully challenged by her before the appellate and the reviewing authorities. Assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.2678/2004 preferred by her against the transfer order dated 24.08.2004, would submit that since, the same was quashed and set aside, she could not have been blamed for its non-compliance and no charge-sheet could have been issued in the Month of July, 2005, i.e., after quashing of the transfer order. He further submits that the Officer issuing the charge-sheet, despite being well aware of the fact that the transfer order, which was also issued by him, was quashed and set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2005, still issued it. Learned counsel contends that none of the authorities; be it the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority or the reviewing authority, considered this aspect while passing the orders impugned. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the orders impugned be quashed and set [2025:RJ-JP:30307] (3 of 5) [CW-2687/2011] aside and she be exonerated from the charge levelled vide memorandum dated 08.07.2005. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the authorities, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The factual aspect contained in the charge levelled against the petitioner, i.e., that pursuant to transfer order dated 24.08.2004, she was relieved on 14.12.2004 and she did not join at the transferred place till 22.04.2005, is not disputed even by her learned counsel. The defence offered is based on the order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Tribunal whereby, the transfer order dated 24.08.2004 was quashed and set aside. However, in absence of any interim order staying the operation of the transfer order, it was not open for the petitioner not to have joined at the transferred place after being relieved from the earlier place of posting on 14.12.2004 for a period of more than four months and a week. Mere pendency of the appeal preferred against the transfer order does not furnish any justification to the Government servant under transfer to flout the order and not to join at the transferred place for long. In view of the aforesaid, the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as to validity of the charge-sheet does not merit acceptance. This Court also does not find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the transfer order was quashed, no charge- sheet could have been issued alleging non-joining at the transferred place for the reasons stated hereinabove. [2025:RJ-JP:30307] (4 of 5) [CW-2687/2011] Insofar as the second limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that in her reply filed to the charge-sheet submitted alongwith memo of the writ petition as Annexure-10, it is nowhere reflected that she took the defence of not joining pursuant to the transfer order on account of pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal or, for the reason that the same was quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2005. The only explanation offered therein is that she was sick from 08.12.2004 but, the disciplinary authority has assigned cogent reasons, in its order dated 24.05.2006, for not relying upon the medical certificates submitted by her in support of her claim of sickness. This finding is not subject-matter of challenge before this Court and has, thus attained finality. Further, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite raising this plea in the memo of appeal, the appellate authority did not appreciate the same, is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the appellate authority reflects that this aspect was specifically taken into consideration but, did not find favour. The review petition preferred thereagainst has been rejected by the reviewing authority taking into consideration the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, assuming that the reviewing authority did not specifically consider the aspect of quashing of the transfer order by the Tribunal, as already observed by this Court, quashing of the transfer order by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2005 does not dilute the charge levelled against her and it of no assistance to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:30307] (5 of 5) [CW-2687/2011] Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/1