[2025:RJ-JP:11273] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7426/2012 Dr. Dashrath Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Madho Singh Rajawat, Nadauti, District Karauli Presently Posted As Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karauli Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secr, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Through Its Registrar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anurag Sharma with Ms.Shreya Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakhar Jain for Mr.Archit Bohra, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.04.1999 passed by the respondents by which the service period of the petitioner with effect from 31.12.1993 till 15.01.1997 has been treated as diesnon. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along-with other two delinquent faced departmental proceedings under Rule 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”) for several charges and finally, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.10.1993. [2025:RJ-JP:11273] (2 of 4) [CW-7426/2012] Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 before His Excellency, the Governor. Counsel submits that the punishment order of dismissal from service dated 19.10.1993, was converted into the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 16.01.1997, the petitioner was reinstated back in service, but one fine morning, vide order dated 30.04.1999, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled for salary for the period w.e.f. 31.12.1993 to 15.01.1997. The order impugned has been passed without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that during the intervening period, i.e., 31.12.1993 till 15.01.1997, the petitioner remained under termination from service and hence, he was not working for the said period. Counsel submits that services of the petitioner were dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.10.1993 and the aforesaid order was modified by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 16.01.1997 and during this period, the petitioner has not worked, hence, the respondents have treated the aforesaid period of the petitioner as diesnon and passed order accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:11273] (3 of 4) [CW-7426/2012] Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has faced the Departmental Enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for certain charges where, he was found to be guilty and accordingly, a decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service vide order dated 19.10.1993. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a review before His Excellency, the Governor under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 and the Reviewing Authority converted the dismissal order into punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 16.01.1997 and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated back in service. It appears that the petitioner was taken to surprise by the act of respondents for treating the period commencing from 31.12.1993 till 15.01.1997 as diesnon. 6. It is worthy to note here that before passing the aforesaid order neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightaway, the aforesaid order was passed which has resulted in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 7. It is the settled proposition of law that whenever any adverse order is passed against a person by any Authority, it is expected from the Authority concerned to provide him adequate amount of opportunity of hearing by way of issuing notice, but herein the [2025:RJ-JP:11273] (4 of 4) [CW-7426/2012] instant case, the aforesaid procedure was not followed and the order impugned was passed. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.04.1999 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. All application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /52