[2025:RJ-JP:38346] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4231/2009 Rajendra Kumar Sain, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Nathua Lal Sain, resident of Karauli ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director of Employment Services, Government of Rajasthan, Darbar School Campus, Gopinath Marg, Jaipur 3. The District Employment Officer, Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Verma for Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/09/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the District Employment Officer, Karauli, whereby penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has also questioned the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal against the penalty order dated 08.12.2005 has been dismissed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that one charge-sheet dated 08.09.2005, was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 containing as many as four [2025:RJ-JP:38346] (2 of 5) [CW-4231/2009] charges relating to absence of the petitioner, despite being shown as present in the attendance register as well as on account of remaining absent at the time of sudden inspection by Deputy Collector, Karauli and unauthorizedly locking the office and for demanding illegal gratification from two aspirants who wanted themselves to be registered with the employment exchange. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet; denying all the charges and explanation with regard to each and every charge was given in reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, a penalty order dated 08.12.2005 was passed by the District Employment Officer-cum- Disciplinary Authority for imposing the penalty of withholding two grade increments without cumulative effect. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the penalty order, raising specific grounds to show total non-consideration as well as non-application of mind while imposing the penalty order dated 08.12.2005. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.08.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order dated 08.12.2005 itself reveals that the defiance of the petitioner has not at all being considered by the Disciplinary Authority, and the order has been passed in cryptic manner. Even, the Appellate Authority has not appreciated any of the grounds raised in memo of appeal and in quite mechanical manner, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that in order to ensure discipline, the employer/Disciplinary Authority can certainly initiate departmental proceedings, yet the right of the delinquent to defend such proceedings cannot be prejudiced in the manner that the defiance [2025:RJ-JP:38346] (3 of 5) [CW-4231/2009] put forward by the delinquent in the form of reply to the charge- sheet can be allowed to be ignored altogether by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel also submits that the order of the Appellate Authority is also in violation of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition by stating that the allegations against the petitioner were quite serious in nature and for which a charge-sheet was filed with defend, specific charges were framed and served upon the petitioner and he was also granted the opportunity to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. After granting him complete opportunity of hearing, the penalty order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was also examined by the Appellate Authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner. Since there were no justified ground in the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence, the same has been rejected by the Appellate Authority. 6. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. Penalty order dated 08.12.2005 speaks volumes about arbitrariness in the matter. It is not disputed that in case any misconduct has been committed by any employee then the Disciplinary Authority can issue charge-sheet in order to maintain discipline as well as to punish for the misconduct committed by the delinquent. However, such power is not unbridled and unfettered. The Disciplinary Authority is under a legal obligation to consider the defiance put forward by the delinquent. In this case, [2025:RJ-JP:38346] (4 of 5) [CW-4231/2009] order dated 08.12.2005 would reveal that even the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner have not been referred. 8. No person of prudent of mind would be able to make out by a bare reading of order dated 08.12.2005 as to for which misconduct, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not even cared to refer to reply, which was filed by the petitioner delinquent, and in quite mechanical manner, without there being any application of mind, order dated 08.12.2005 has been passed. 9. No justification, whatsoever has been given in the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalty of withholding two grade increments. 10. Clearly, such order is untenable in the eye of law as it defiance the all norms of reasonableness on the part of Disciplinary Authority. 11. Bare perusal of memo of appeal filed by the petitioner would reflect that number of grounds were raised by the petitioner to assail the penalty order dated 08.12.2005 as well as to show there was total non-consideration of the reply to the charge-sheet filed by the petitioner. As per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, the Appellate Authority is under an obligation to deal and consider each and every material ground raised by the delinquent appellant, but in the instant case, without considering any of the ground raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Penalty order dated 13.08.2008 as well as [2025:RJ-JP:38346] (5 of 5) [CW-4231/2009] appellate order dated 06.01.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits on account of quashing of aforesaid penalty. Necessary exercise be done by the respondents and due benefits to be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /17