[2025:RJ-JP:32218] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19719/2024 Pradyumna Kumar Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Gurunanak Colony, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. District And Sessions Judge Cum Disciplinary Authority, Bundi Judgeship, District Bundi 2. Enquiry Officer Cum Special Judge, Scheduled Castes And Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 18/08/2025 This writ petition is directed against the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “Rules of 1958”) vide memorandum dated 15.06.2024 for an incident of 04.01.2020. On 11.08.2025, this Court passed following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged incident dated 04.01.2020, he has been issued a charge-sheet under Rule 18 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1958’) vide memorandum dated 15.06.2024 and since he retired on attaining the age of [2025:RJ-JP:32218] (2 of 3) [CW-19719/2024] superannuation i.e. on 31.10.2020, it is hit by Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted time to complete his instructions. List the matter on 18.08.2025 at top of the list as prayed.” Pursuant thereto, learned Deputy Government Counsel has filed today an affidavit of Dr. Vivek Sharma-the Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi, a copy whereof has been submitted for perusal of the Court. In the affidavit also, it is admitted that the incidents are dated 06.12.2019 and 04.01.2020. For the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is established that the petitioner has been issued charge-sheet under the Rules of 1958 after his retirement in respect of event which took place more than four years before its issuance and in view thereof, it is hit by the provision of Rule 7 (2)(b)(ii) Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and is rendered invalid. This legal proposition could not be disputed even by the learned counsel for the respondents. Further, it is a well established principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The aforesaid legal position has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Verghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. MANU/SC/0168/1999: (1999) 3 SCC 422, the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder: 31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this Rule is [2025:RJ-JP:32218] (3 of 3) [CW-19719/2024] traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: [W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 32. This Rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the Rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This Rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.” As already held, in the instant case, the subject charge-sheet has been issued in complete violation of the statutory provision which is impermissible. In view thereof, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 15.06.2024 is quashed and set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J SAURABH /23