[2025:RJ-JP:31754-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 953/2025 Shailendra Kumar Son Of Shri Swarn Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Phed Office, Khand Bayana, Bharatpur ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Joint Secretary-First, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Gautam Kumar Son Of Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 17, Jatav Mohalla, Pichoomar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Emp Id- Rjpg201530011387) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 14/08/2025 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the observations made in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCW No.10300/2025 wherein a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner for filing the writ petition as well as directions were issued to the department to initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a chargesheet to the petitioner for approaching this Court. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was filed challenging the arbitrary action of the respondent in [2025:RJ-JP:31754-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-953/2025] withdrawing the additional charge of the post of AEN from the appellant-petitioner. However, the writ petition was dismissed at the threshold even without issuing notice to the State, imposing cost upon the petitioner and asking the department for service of a chargesheet upon the petitioner. Counsel prayed for quashing of the imposition of cost by the learned Single Judge and directions given to the department for issuance of chargesheet. 3. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. We are of the considered view that since the writ petition was dismissed in limine without issuance of notice to the State, the imposition of cost upon the petitioner and directions to the department to initiate departmental proceedings are not justified. 5. In that view of the matter, the directions i.e. imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/- and the directions issued to the Chief Engineer for issuance of a chargesheet against the petitioner contained respectively in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order as well as the directions contained in paragraph 15 are hereby set aside. 6. Accordingly, the special writ (appeal) stands partly allowed in the above terms. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/42