[2025:RJ-JP:41833-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.348/2019 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5287/2010 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Deputy Director, Department Of Personnel (K- 3/inquiry), Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. The Director, Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Appellants Versus Manoj Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Hari Charan Lal Ji, Ayurved Chikitsak, Resident Of Near Stadium, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan). Presently Posted As Ayurved Chikitsak, Government Ayurved Aushdhalaya, Pipalda, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent-writ petitioner For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Deepak Mittal & Ms. Monisha Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, with Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/10/2025 1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State challenging the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5287/2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:41833-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-348/2019] 2. The bone of contention, as raised by the writ petitioner (respondent) in the writ petition, wherein the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge, was that the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 17.04.2006 under Rule 16(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on two counts; firstly, recovery of heavy quantity of allopathy medicines etc., and secondly, that he was coming to the office with a delay of 2.30 hours from the duty time. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State submits that the order impugned has been passed only on count of the fact that the order of punishment was violative of principles of natural justice as the show cause notice or opportunity in relation to the point of disagreement was not provided to the delinquent (respondent herein), and therefore, the punishment in question could not have been awarded to the respondent. 3.1. Learned Additional Advocate General has demonstrated from Annexure-5 that a detailed disagreement notice was given and all the issues were brought to the notice of the respondent which were thereafter utilized in passing the order of punishment dated 20.05.2009. He further demonstrated from the order of punishment dated 20.05.2009 that the issues which were dealt with were reasoned and the satisfaction recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was completely in tandem with the material on record. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner), while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, initially tried to persuade this Court [2025:RJ-JP:41833-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-348/2019] that the disagreement notice was not carrying all the details, as required, but subsequently submitted that a lenient view may have been taken in the matter on proportionality of punishment awarded because the writ-petitioner (respondent) is at the verge of retirement, and he has an otherwise unblemished service record. 4.1. Learned counsel emphasized upon the quantum of the punishment and sought reduction of punishment i.e. withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. On a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the disagreement notice was quite detailed. This Court finds the punishment order to be reasoned, however, persuaded by learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that since it was an incident of the year 2006, by now around 20 years have elapsed thereafter, when the writ-petitioner (respondent) is at the verge of the retirement and it was a sole disciplinary incident, which in its own factual matrix i.e. coming late to the Office with a delay of 2.30 hours from the duty time and allegation of allopathy medicines etc. were found in the place, and therefore, the matter warrants interference on the quantum of punishment. 6.1. Thus, in the overall perspective, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the punishment order dated 20.05.2009 passed by [2025:RJ-JP:41833-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-348/2019] the Disciplinary Authority is interfered with, only to the extent of the quantum of punishment, by substituting the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, as awarded to the respondent (writ petitioner), by withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. It is accordingly directed that all the consequential benefits shall be extended to the respondent (writ petitioner). 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present special appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J DANISH USMANI/16