[2025:RJ-JP:3564] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19474/2024 Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Mali Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 31, Balaji Vihar-10, Sikar Road, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Department Of Personnel, Through Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Office Of District Collector And District Magistrate, Churu, Through Collector, District Churu, H-65, Churu Road, Churu. 4. Deputy Secretary (A3/inquiry), Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina Mr. Movil Jeenwal Mr. Himanshu Kala JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/01/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for sometime, that a direction be issued to the Competent Authority to decide the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “the Rules of 1958”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a revenue suit was decided by the petitioner in the capacity of Assistant [2025:RJ-JP:3564] (2 of 3) [CW-19474/2024] Collector vide judgment dated 23.10.2020 against which an appeal was preferred by the State before the Additional Collector, Churu, who referred the same to the Board of Revenue by way of reference and finally the reference was dismissed on 14.02.2020. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, the reference was dismissed and the judgment passed by the petitioner was upheld. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, the domestic enquiry proceeded against the petitioner and the charges were not found to be proved against him and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel, who has also not found the charges proved against the petitioner, but even then the Competent Authority has not passed the final orders and the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner and the same is lying pending before the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is approaching towards the age of his superannuation, so appropriate directions be issued to the authorities to decide the pending charge-sheet within a stipulated time preferably within a period of 15 days. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that in domestic enquiry the charges were not found to be proved against the petitioner and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel and the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been approved, but till date the charge-sheet is still pending against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:3564] (3 of 3) [CW-19474/2024] 6. In view of the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition with directions to the respondents to decide the charge-sheet (pending, if any) against the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of 8. Stay application as well as all pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/9