[2025:RJ-JP:2140-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1006/2023 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through The Secretary. ----Appellants Versus P.l. Bugalia Son Of Late Shri Omkar Mal, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of 192, Awho Colony, Amba Bari, Jaipur, Presently Working As Executive Engineer, Phed Division, Makrana, District Nagaur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Naman Dadhich Ms. Manaswita Nakwaal on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 16/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The foremost submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the charges, as framed, were not proved, the disciplinary authority obtained the report from the Finance and Accounts Officer which establish at least supervisory negligence. The note of disagreement based on this new material was communicated to the delinquent employee. His reply was obtained and then the order of punishment was passed, therefore, even though technically speaking, no specific charge of [2025:RJ-JP:2140-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1006/2023] supervisory negligence was levelled, there was enough material which was shared with the employee and after opportunity, impugned order was passed. 3. In the alternative, learned counsel for the State would strenuously urge that even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the imposition of penalty was founded on a newly invented charge of supervisory negligence, which was not part of the charge-sheet, the learned Single Judge instead of allowing the petition, ought to have remanded the case giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue fresh charge-sheet in the matter of supervisory negligence. In his submission, there was enough material on record to make out a case of supervisory negligence and, therefore, only on technical ground, the case ought not to have been closed. 4. After going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and perusing the charge-sheet issued to the delinquent employee on 31.12.1994, we find that none of the five charges relates to supervisory negligence. The record clearly shows that the inquiry officer submitted an inquiry report in which none of the charges as levelled against respondent were found proved. If at all the disciplinary authority at that time was of the view that some other charges are required to be framed, the only course open at that stage was to proceed with further inquiry by invoking the powers under the relevant disciplinary rules. However, that was not done. Instead the disciplinary authority collected certain new material without there being any new charges framed against the delinquent employee and that was made a basis to impose penalty. Therefore, learned Single Judge has not committed any [2025:RJ-JP:2140-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1006/2023] illegality in holding that imposition of penalty based on a newly invented charge of supervisory negligence, which was otherwise not part of the charges, as framed, was illegal. The submission on this ground, therefore, fails. As far as second submission is concerned, had it been a case of recent past, we would have granted the State liberty to issue fresh charge-sheet. However, the record shows that the charge- sheet was issued to the delinquent employee way back in the year 1994. Therefore, at this stage, in the year 2025, this Court would not be inclined to grant such a liberty to issue fresh charge to the delinquent employee. Therefore, we are inclined to put quietus to the dispute. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ B.M. Gandhi/Gaurav/06