[2025:RJ-JP:10883] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3302/2025 Pushpendra Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Omprakash Bhardwsaj, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Patarkheda, Post Mahukhurd, District Dausa Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan. 3. Joint Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division Bharatpur. 4. District Education Officer, Head Quarter, Secondary, Bharatpur. 5. Smt. Durgawati Meena, Peeo/ Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Lalita Mundi, Weir Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned charge-sheets issued to the petitioner on three different occasions i.e. on 28.11.2024, 15.12.2024 and 10.02.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the similar charges, three different charge-sheets have been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that three different charge-sheets for the same charges cannot be issued, [2025:RJ-JP:10883] (2 of 3) [CW-3302/2025] hence all these charge-sheets are liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that two charge-sheets dated 28.11.2024 and 15.12.2024 consists of similar charges, but the same have been issued by two different officers i.e. Joint Director, School Education, Bharatpur Division and Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner respectively. He fairly admits that charges mentioned in both the aforementioned charge-sheets are similar and identical, but he submits that so far as charge-sheet dated 10.02.2025 is concerned, the same is altogether different compared to the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheets dated 28.11.2024 and 15.12.2024. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, charge-sheets issued against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed and set-aside and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the charge-sheets dated 28.11.2024 and 15.12.2024 clearly indicates that same charges have been levelled against the petitioner in these two charge-sheets. The only difference is that both the charge-sheets have been issued by different Officers. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the charges are similar against a delinquent employee, then a composite enquiry is required to be conducted. In the instant case, when the charges are similar in both these charge-sheets i.e. charge-sheet dated [2025:RJ-JP:10883] (3 of 3) [CW-3302/2025] 28.11.2024 and 15.12.2024 then both the charge-sheets are liable to be clubbed and consolidated together and a common enquiry with regard to all the charges levied is liable to be conducted by one Enquiry Officer. So far as the third charge-sheet dated 10.02.2025 is concerned, the same has nothing to do with other two charge-sheets, hence separate inquiry in this charge- sheet is required to be conducted by a separate Enquiry Officer. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to club and consolidate the enquiry of the charge-sheets dated 28.11.2024 and 15.12.2024 and it is expected from the respondents to appoint a common Enquiry Officer to enquire about the charges levelled against the petitioner in both the charge-sheets. So far as the charge-sheet dated 10.02.2025 and third enquiry on the said charge-sheet is concerned, the same may be decided by other Enquiry Officer by passing appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 8. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/262