HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23554/2018 Rajendra Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ramji Lal Gupta, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Near Girls School, Village And Post Kurgaon, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 1 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur 3. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Kota 4. Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Divisional Forest Officer), Behind Collectorate, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect has been passed. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and Revision Petition was filed, however both the Appeal and Revision Petition were rejected vide order dated 28.08.2012 and 20.06.2016 respectively. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition. (2 of 3) [CW-23554/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) was served upon the petitioner with a charge that he was posted as Range Forest Officer at Ladpura and without seeking any permission in writing he got himself relieved and joined a new place of posting. Learned counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner is a gazetted officer and officer like the petitioner, is not supposed to seek any permission for relieving and even otherwise also no person joined on the post of petitioner, hence there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to seek any order in writing. Learned counsel submits that without considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, straightway the order impugned has been passed, without assigning any reason. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was issued to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply but without considering the contents of the reply and without holding any (3 of 3) [CW-23554/2018] inquiry, straightway the impugned order was passed by which the petitioner has been punished. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that the Disciplinary Authority is supposed to pass a reasoned and a speaking order, but in the instant case, no reasons have been assigned and the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, hence under these circumstances, the impugned order and subsequent orders are liable to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. 8. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/102