[2025:RJ-JP:13816] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10081/2014 Ayub Ahmed S/o Shri Noor Mohd., Village And Post Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, Distt. Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Divisional Commissioner, Kota. 2. District Collector, Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Office of the District Collector (Land Records), Baran by which the petitioner has been punished with penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) before the Divisional Commissioner, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2011. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 with the allegation that inspite of receipt of the advance amount of repairing, no details were furnished by the petitioner and the construction work done, on the property, caused damage and loss [2025:RJ-JP:13816] (2 of 3) [CW-10081/2014] to the public property and the public sentiments were also affected in violation of the provisions contained under the Religious Building and Places Act, 1954. In all 7 charges were framed against the petitioner for which charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him on 31.03.1994. The aforesaid charge-sheet remained pending for adjudication and in the meantime, other charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner with the charge of committing fabrication in the Land Revenue Record. Since the petitioner was found guilty in the subsequent charge-sheet, he was punished with penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 08.06.1994, hence, the instant charge-sheet dated 31.03.1994 remains un-concluded. 3. The petitioner assailed his removal order before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5272/1996 and the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and the directions were issued to the respondents to pass fresh orders of punishment. 4. At this juncture, the proceedings arising out of the instant charge-sheet, came into effect automatically and accordingly, a decision was taken to impose penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment upon the petitioner. Looking to the charges Nos. 1, 5 & 7, which were found to be proved against him and the misconduct of the petitioner, the aforesaid order has been passed by the disciplinary authority by giving cogent reasons which requires no interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:13816] (3 of 3) [CW-10081/2014] 5. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /141