[2025:RJ-JP:10744] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5932/2009 Bhawani Singh Son Of Shri Sardar Singh Rajpur Police Constable No. 119 Posted At Addl.S.P. CID CB Range, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Additional Director General of Police, CID, Crime Branch, Police Headquarters, Jaipur 3. Superintendent of police (Administration & PRC) CID CB, Police Headquarters, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M. M. Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made qua the order by which the suspension allowance of the petitioner have been ordered to be forfeited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”) was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.03.2007 and his suspension order was revoked on 06.08.2007. Counsel submits that charge against the petitioner was that he spoke in higher voice with the senior and considering the above act of the petitioner as misconduct, he was punished with penalty of censure vide order dated 15.12.2007. Counsel submits that while imposing the penalty of censure upon [2025:RJ-JP:10744] (2 of 4) [CW-5932/2009] the petitioner, the respondents have exceeded in forfeiting the subsistence allowance and salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension. Counsel submits that censure is not a major penalty which warrants such forfeiture vide impugned order dated 15.12.2007. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gulam Husain Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 (3) WLC (Raj.) 330. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the misconduct of the petitioner, he was punished with penalty of censure and his subsistence allowance and salary for the period of suspension was ordered to be forfeited by the Disciplinary Authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order and the said order has been further upheld by the Statutory Appellate Authority, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that for the charge of raising voice in a high pitch with the higher officials, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, where the said charge was found to be proved against the petitioner and looking to the aforesaid misconduct of the petitioner, he was punished with penalty of censure along-with [2025:RJ-JP:10744] (3 of 4) [CW-5932/2009] forfeiture of the subsistence allowance and salary of the suspension period. 7. So far as the punishment of the petitioner regarding imposition of penalty of censure is concerned that cannot be interfered with by this Court, as the Disciplinary Authority after appreciating the evidence available on record as recorded a cogent finding and found the petitioner as guilty for the misconduct and accordingly, the aforesaid punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. 8. Now, the other issue before this Court is that “whether for such a minor penalty of censure, the subsequent order, i.e., forfeiture of the subsistence allowance and salary is required to be passed by the respondents or not?” 9. Looking to the aforesaid minor misconduct of the petitioner, once he was punished with the penalty of censure, there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to pass the subsequent order of forfeiture of the subsistence allowance and the salary for the intervening period of suspension till its revocation. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Gulam Husain (supra). Imposing of penalty of ‘censure’ is not a major penalty. 10. Considering the law propounded by this Court in the case of Gulam Husain (supra), the instant writ petition stands partly allowed and the punishment order up to the part of forfeiture of the subsistence allowances and salary stands quashed and set- aside. The respondents are directed to release the due benefits of the intervening period, i.e., the suspension period to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:10744] (4 of 4) [CW-5932/2009] 11. All application, pending if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /67