HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5679/2017 Gopesh Kumar son of Shri Ranjeet Singh Yadav, D-158, Hasan Khan Mewati Nagar, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar for Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.09.2016, passed by the Appellate Authority, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’) against the impugned order dated 16.10.2003 has been rejected on the ground of delay. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner faced departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, wherein, he was punished with a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 16.10.2003. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, (2 of 3) [CW-5679/2017] there was no obstruction in getting promotion to higher post on the ground of minor penalties imposed upon delinquent employees. Counsel submits that the position of law changed by the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Shankar Lal Parmar reported in 2011 (14) SCC 235. Counsel submits that the aforesaid penalty was coming in the way of the promotion of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed, not on merits, but on a technical point of limitation. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority was supposed to decide the appeal on its merits, hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the punishment order was passed on 16.10.2003, while the appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2016 without giving any justified reason for the said delay. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the (3 of 3) [CW-5679/2017] reasons of delay has been explained by the petitioner, the matter is required to be decided by the Appellate Authority on its merits. 5. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned order dated 15.09.2016 stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective sides. 6. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority will pass a fresh order expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/53