[2025:RJ-JP:37667] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9227/2013 Prakash Chand S/o Sh. Tej Singh, aged about 51 years, R/o Village & Port Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director/Commissioner, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer, Primary Education, Bharatpur. 4. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur through Registrar. 5. Dr. Rammanohar Lohiya Avadh University, Faijabad (U.P.) through Registrar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/09/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.03.2013 issued by the District Education Officer, Primary Education, Bharatpur in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated in exercise of Rule 19(ii) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'). 2. Petitioner has come out with a case that he was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III on 01.07.1987 and was a confirmed employee of respondent-Education Department. In the year 2009, on account of one complaint filed by Sh. Hotilal S/o Sh. [2025:RJ-JP:37667] (2 of 6) [CW-9227/2013] Kharag Singh, which was forwarded by the Office of Minister, Elementary Secondary Education, levelling allegations regarding obtaining services by the petitioner on the basis of forged document, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, one charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was issued, however, without proceeding further to conduct an inquiry pursuant to aforesaid charge-sheet dated 18.04.2012, the respondent No.3, in quite arbitrary manner dispensed with the regular inquiry and only on the basis of alleged internal inquiry report, terminated the services of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 25.03.2013 itself would reveal that powers under Rule 19 have been exercised by the Disciplinary Authority in quite dictatorial and malicious manner; without there being any sufficient reason for dispensing with the regular inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2017 (2) W.L.N. 603], order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6008/2022 (Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the judgment delivered in the case of Banwari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2014 (4) WLC (Raj.) 337 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing reply in which it was submitted that the petitioner has obtained service after misleading the respondents by submitting forged documents. It has been submitted that the verification of [2025:RJ-JP:37667] (3 of 6) [CW-9227/2013] the documents has been done by the respondents by writing letters to the concerned university and even preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondent-Department, where the preliminary Inquiry Committee has given a categorical finding that the petitioner had submitted forged documents for the purpose of securing service in respondent-Department. 6. It is further submitted that since the misconduct of the petitioner was quite serious in nature, therefore, charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 dated 18.04.2012 was issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner was avoiding participation in inquiry. So many notices were issued to the petitioner but he did not respond to the notices. Even, notice was issued in daily newspaper namely Rajasthan Patrika on 06.03.2013 for granting the petitioner opportunity to submit his documents and since there was no co-operation by the petitioner, therefore, under these circumstances it was not practical and feasible to conduct the regular inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 against the petitioner, hence, the Disciplinary Authority has taken right recourse of Rule 19 of the Rule of 1958 and on the basis of material available on record, while dispensing with inquiry, services of the petitioner have been terminated. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is an undisputed fact that in order to enforce discipline as well as to take disciplinary action against any misconduct, the respondent-employer has got powers under the Rules of 1958 to punish the delinquent but such power is not [2025:RJ-JP:37667] (4 of 6) [CW-9227/2013] unbridled and unfettered; but is subject to the provisions of the Rules of 1958. 9. In the instant case, where charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 18.04.2012, no proper justification has been assigned for not proceeding further pursuant to aforesaid charge-sheet dated 18.04.2012; and for adopting a shortcut prescribed under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. 10. The powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 cannot be exercised in routine manner, which is rather meant for the exceptional cases where it was not reasonable/practicable to follow the regular procedure of inquiry. In the instant case, even if the petitioner was not responding to the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rule of 1958, then also there was no impediment in the way of Disciplinary Authority and it could have proceeded further to conduct regular inquiry even in the absence of petitioner delinquent and after conducting inquiry and on the basis of evidence/material to be collected during the regular inquiry, appropriate action could have been taken. 11. Merely, for the reason that the petitioner did not respond to the charge-sheet cannot be the sole ground to dispense with the regular inquiry and, hence, this Court finds that the course adopted by the District Education Officer, Elementary, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-Disciplinary Authority was totally arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1958. 12. In the case of Banwari Lal (supra) while considering Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958, this Court examined the question as to whether the reasons assigned by Disciplinary Authority for [2025:RJ-JP:37667] (5 of 6) [CW-9227/2013] dispensing with the regular inquiry were in conformity with the provisions of law or not. After considering several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed that the reasons recorded for satisfaction must been objective and within the framework of the Rules. 13. In the case of Satyendra Singh (supra), where also the regular inquiry was dispensed with and power under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 was exercised, the same was held to be illegal as the reasons assigned for exercise of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 were not found proper. 14. In the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra) exercise of powers under Rules 19 of the Rule of 1958, in the facts and circumstances of the case has been held to be in violation of principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the procedural Rules. 15. In the instant case also the reasons assigned in the order dated 25.03.2013 to avoid and ignore the regular procedure of inquiry contemplated under the Rules of 1958 are not based on any logic or objective considerations and are rather quite whimsical, fanciful and unfair. 16. In the light of above discussion, this Court deems it just and proper to allow that writ petition filed by the petitioner. Order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the District Education Officer, Primary Education, Bharatpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service within a period of six weeks. However, he shall not be entitled for actual monetary benefits and only notional benefits shall be given to him for the intervening period. Mere quashing of order dated [2025:RJ-JP:37667] (6 of 6) [CW-9227/2013] 25.03.2013 would not preclude the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to charge-sheet dated 18.04.2012 to conduct regular inquiry against the petitioner. Such inquiry shall be conducted and concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry and not to avoid the proceedings of inquiry. Further action shall be taken by the respondents strictly in accordance with law on the basis of result of enquiry pursuant to charge-sheet dated 18.04.2012. 17. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/37