[2025:RJ-JP:22531] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5309/2025 Rachna Bishnoi D/o Sh. Maniram Bishnoi, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of C/o F-152, Mini Sachivalya, VTC Hanumangarh, P.O. Hanumangarh Junction, Sub. District Hanumangarh, (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. 2. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Joint Government Secretary, Department Of Home (Appeal), Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer. 5. Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Kumawat with Mr. S.K. Lamba and Mr. Prameshwar Lal Pilania through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 28/05/2025 This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order of punishment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.5, the disciplinary authority inflicting a penalty of ‘censure’ against the petitioner in an enquiry conducted under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”), the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.4- the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:22531] (2 of 2) [CW-5309/2025] thereagainst as also the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while, vide memorandum dated 24.08.2017 issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, five charges were levelled against her, the disciplinary authority, in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 17 (2)(v) of the Rules of 1958, without recording his findings on each and every distinct charge separately, making a general and vague observation that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in conducting the investigation, inflicted the penalty of ‘censure’ and her appeal preferred thereagainst, has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide a non-speaking order. In the aforesaid backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of in following terms as agreed and requested by learned counsels for the respective parties: 1. The orders impugned dated 05.04.2023, 25.02.2019 and 31.10.2017 are quashed and set aside. 2. The respondents are at liberty to pass an order afresh under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 in accordance with law within a period of six months from today extending the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, if so desired. 3. It is made clear that failure to exercise the opportunity within the stipulated period would result into its cessation. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/77