[2025:RJ-JP:14162] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6505/2007 Ghanshyam Khatumara Son of Shri Mannalal, aged about 56 years, R/o 11, Ashok Nagar, Mayo College Link Road, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Urban Governance, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Deputy Secretary Cum Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh Ms. Gunjan Chawla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/03/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of reversion from the post of Executive Officer Grade- II to Executive Officer Grade-III. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for certain charges, a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner wherein, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him by the Inquiry Officer who did not find the charges proved against him. Counsel [2025:RJ-JP:14162] (2 of 4) [CW-6505/2007] submits that the disciplinary authority without issuing any disagreement notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of hearing, straightaway passed the order impugned which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that it is a settled proposition of law that in case, the Inquiry Officer did not find the charges proved against the delinquent employee, it is necessary and obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to issue disagreement note/notice to such delinquent employee but in the instant case, this exercise has not been done, and straightaway the order impugned has been passed. 3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783 decided on 19.08.1998. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that after serving the charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, the departmental inquiry was conducted against him, wherein the Inquiry Officer did not found the charges, proved against him. This [2025:RJ-JP:14162] (3 of 4) [CW-6505/2007] fact is also not in dispute that without issuing any disagreement notice to the petitioner, straightaway the impugned order of penalty has been passed against the petitioner which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Mishra (supra), has held that in such like matters, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed, whenever, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Inquiry Officer on any article of charge then before passing any order of punishment or before recording its own finding on such charges at least, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before its records its findings. It has been held in para No.19 which reads as under: “The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to given an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 8. Looking to the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Mishra (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to [2025:RJ-JP:14162] (4 of 4) [CW-6505/2007] be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. 9. Needless to observe, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording due opportunity of hearing to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/68