[2025:RJ-JP:32123-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 680/2025 Bhanwar Singh S/o Abhay Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jhjheu, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. The Director, Directorate Of Literacy And Continuing Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The District Literacy And Continuing Education Officer, Jaipur. 5. The District Collector And Chairman, District Redressal Committee (Literacy), Jaipur. 6. The District Literacy And Continuing Education Officer, Bikaner. 7. The District Collector And Chairman, District Redressal Committee (Literacy), Bikaner. 8. The District Literacy And Continuing Education Officer, Sriganganagar. 9. The District Collector And Chairman, District Redressal Committee (Literacy), Sriganganagar. 10. Prabhu Dayal S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Phalanwali, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. 11. Yogesh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Rcp Colony, 2 Mld-A, Gharsana, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. 12. Ramswaroop Choudhary S/o Keshar Lal Choudhary, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Jhopadiya, Post Bhankrota, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shovit Jhajharia For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:32123-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-680/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 18/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the Court directing the respondents to initiate departmental enquiry is a very harsh order and the affidavit of stenographer has not been taken into consideration. 3. Writ petition was filed which was duly signed by the counsel along with affidavit. Therefore, submission that it was inadvertently made, cannot be accepted. However, whether act of the appellant is one which warrants imposition of minor penalty or major penalty would be an issue for consideration by the concerned authority. The appellant would be at liberty to submit before the concerned authority that present is not a case for major penalty but only for minor penalty. 4. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/64