[2025:RJ-JP:44829] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19993/2017 Hemendra Kumar Yadav son of Shri Vishambhar Dayal, Resident Of Vpo Karirivas, Post Budhi Bawal, Tehsil Kot Kasim, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Zila Parishad, Alwar through its Chief Executive Officer, Alwar 3. Executive Engineer Engineering, Zila Parishad, Alwar 4. Panchayat Samiti, Kot Kasim, District Alwar through its Vikash Adhikari ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.B.L. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena, Advocate Ms. Anjali Ranga, Advocate Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, A.A.G. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order Reserved on ::: 6th November, 2025 Pronounced on ::: 13th November, 2025 *** In the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned charge-sheet dt.02.06.2014, the order dt.13.10.2014 and the order of recovery dt.10.10.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner. That the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." [2025:RJ-JP:44829] (2 of 4) [CW-19993/2017] The petitioner, while discharging his duties as a Secretary, Gram Panchayat Badhana, under Panchayat Samiti, Kot-Kasim, District Alwar, was issued a charge-sheet dt.02.06.2014 alleging therein the irregularities in the construction work of Government Primary School, Badhana, which had subsequently collapsed. An inquiry was initiated & upon completion thereof, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report that the construction work had been executed using inferior quality materials. The responsibility for the lapse was fixed upon the petitioner and a recovery was proposed. Pursuant thereto by order dt.13.10.2014, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. Subsequently, by order dt.10.10.2017 the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Kot Kasim, ordered the recovery from the petitioner. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the construction work was done by the Panchayt Samiti as per its estimate and was inspected time & again by the Jr. En. The work was done with due satisfaction & supervision of all the higher authorities. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner & initially the inquiry report was also submitted, wherein no irregularity was found but later- on in another inquiry report, allegations were made against the petitioner for using inferior quality materials. The A.En. concerned in its report has also recommended for the inquiry with regard to collapse of construction but no action was taken in this regard. The matter pertains to year 2013, whereas the recovery has been directed to be made in year, 2017 only against the petitioner & Sarpanch and nothing has been done against the supervisory authority. Therefore, the charge-sheet dt.02.06.2014, the punishment order dt.13.10.2014 as well as the recovery order dt.10.10.2017 may be quashed & set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:44829] (3 of 4) [CW-19993/2017] Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court despite having alternative remedy of approaching ld. Appellate Authority under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958). Counsel further contended that on the basis of preliminary enquiry & site inspection conducted by the Ex.En., a report dt.17.01.2014 was prepared. As per aforesaid report, the inferior quality materials were used in the construction & the standard procedure of construction was also not followed. The petitioner, being a Secretary was In-charge of the construction being carried out & he is responsible for the collapse of the construction. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned orders as well as the material made available on record. Upon considering the submissions advanced at bar & upon perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage in view of existence of a statutory alternative remedy under the Rules of 1958. It is a well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised when the statute provides a detailed mechanism for the redressal of grievances unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any exceptional grounds warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should first avail the alternative remedy as provided under the Rules of 1958. [2025:RJ-JP:44829] (4 of 4) [CW-19993/2017] In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative & efficacious remedy. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the alternative lawful remedy available to him in accordance with the provisions of law. In case, such remedy is availed within a period of thirty- days from today, the period spent in pursuing the present writ petition shall be considered for the purpose of limitation by the concerned authority, and the said authority shall decide it on its merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK/