[2025:RJ-JP:30412] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1093/2002 Dr. Raghuveer Singh Meena S/o Shri Sultan Sinigh R/o Village Bhooda, Teh. Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy, Secretary, Administration, D.O.P., Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Medical and Health Service, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/08/2025 1. The petitioner has assailed order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Disciplinary Authority whereby, penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has also challenged order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while showing order dated 19.10.2000, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority itself, while considering the question of quantum of penalty, has recorded that on the basis of analysis of the record, it was simply an irregularity on the part of the petitioner and there was no mal- intention on his part. It has also been recorded that no loss has [2025:RJ-JP:30412] (2 of 3) [CW-1093/2002] been caused by the State Government. While showing the aforesaid findings of the Disciplinary Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under these circumstances, awarding major penalty has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 3. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.10.2000, by way of filing review petition under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. However, the review petition has also been dismissed by an unreasoned order without considering any of the grounds raised in his review petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that order dated 19.10.2000 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority after following due procedure of inquiry. The petitioner was granted complete opportunity of defending his case, even copy of inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner and thereafter, at his discretion, by taking a lenient view, Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect, in which there is no infirmity or illegality. 5. I have considered the submissions and examined the record. 6. From bare perusal of order dated 19.10.2000, it would reveal that the Disciplinary Authority itself has recorded that false complaints were lodged on account of personal rivalry by a private medical practitioner against the petitioner, which has given rise to the inquiry against the petitioner. It has also been recorded in order dated 19.10.2000 that the allegations against the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:30412] (3 of 3) [CW-1093/2002] are simply relating to irregularities and there was no mal-intention whatsoever on his part. Further, it has also been emphasized by the Disciplinary Authority that no financial loss whatsoever has been caused to the State Government on account of such procedural error. 7. This Court is of the view that major penalties are meant to be imposed in case of grave misconduct committed by the employee. In the instant case, where the Disciplinary Authority itself was of the opinion that the charges against the petitioner were relating to procedural error and there was no finding of committing any misconduct by the petitioner, nor was there any financial loss to the State Government. Under these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority was not justified in imposing major penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect which may cause grave financial loss to the petitioner. 8. Order dated 18.04.2012 passed in review petition is also vague and non-speaking order and the review petition has been rejected by giving a finding that no new fact has been placed on record by the petitioner. 9. Under these circumstances, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Orders dated 19.10.2000 and 04.12.2001 passed against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits which may be granted and released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /14