[2025:RJ-JP:10757] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3405/2025 Lakhan Lal Meena Son Of Shri Ram Charan Meena, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of D-24, Kusum Vihar, Ramnagariya Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter (Phq), Nehru Place, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Director, General of Police under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) by which the penalty order has been passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that though the aforesaid order is appealable under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, there is no provision under the Rules for passing interim order, hence in absence thereof, the appellate authority is not in a position to consider and decide the interim application filed (if any) by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that, under the [2025:RJ-JP:10757] (2 of 3) [CW-3405/2025] compelling circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 indicates that the aforesaid order has been passed by the authority in exercise of its powers contained under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. This fact is not in dispute that the aforesaid order is appealable under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958. 5. It is settled proposition of law whenever alternative remedy of filing an appeal is available with a person, he/she cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said authority. 6. This Court finds no substance in the submissions of counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority would not be in a position to pass interim order. 7. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Nagaraj G K Versus The Hon’ble Addl. Labour Commissioner Appellate Authority & Others while deciding Writ Petition No.28361/2024 has categorically held that the appellate authority, despite the absence of specific provision for granting of interim order, would have the power to consider the interim application. The aforesaid judgment has been passed by the Karnataka High Court on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Versus Sri Govind Singh Rawat reported in AIR 1986 SC 984. 8. Considering the above proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Savitri (supra) and by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Nagaraj G K (supra), the [2025:RJ-JP:10757] (3 of 3) [CW-3405/2025] instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 before the Appellate Authority. 9. In case, such appeal is submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority alongwith an interim application within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the interim application strictly in accordance with law and try to make all possible endeavour to decide the main appeal also expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/14