[2025:RJ-JP:11881] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7135/2007 Mahendra Kumar Sharma son of Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, aged 39 years, Resident of Village & Post Sukar, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Sanskrit Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote Mr. Dikshant Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Josh, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made against the impugned order dated 17.07.2004 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been punished with a penalty of Censure. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was facing enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) wherein the charges were not found to [2025:RJ-JP:11881] (2 of 3) [CW-7135/2007] be proved against him and he was exonerated from all the charges. Learned counsel submits that Disciplinary Authority without issuing any notice of disagreement, straightaway passed the order impugned by converting the departmental proceedings under Rule 16 into Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submits that the co-delinquent Chetram Meena has been exonerated and no punishment order has been passed against him. Learned counsel submits that without issuing any notice, the order impugned has been passed which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, hence under these circumstances, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, but she is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner with various charges and to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who did not found the charges as proved against the petitioner and resultantly exonerated him from all the charges. This fact is not in dispute that the matter was brought before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any notice of disagreement and straightaway the order impugned has been passed by which the [2025:RJ-JP:11881] (3 of 3) [CW-7135/2007] petitioner has been punished with a penalty of Censure. The aforesaid act of the respondents has violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, the order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be and hereby quashed and set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the order passed by the Appellate Authority stands quashed and set-aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. All pending applications (if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/79