[2026:RJ-JP:26448] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11786/2026 URN: CW / 26074U / 2026 Laxman Kumar Mahawar S/o. Nand Kishore Mahawar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Chouth Ka Barwada Presently Peeo/principal Government Higher Secondary School, Rajwana, Sawaimadhopur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. Joint Director, (School Education), Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur, Behind Montesary School, Qila, Bharatpur 3. Chief District Education Officer, Sawaimadhopur. 4. District Education Officer, Headquarters, Primary Sawaimadhopur. 5. Chief Block Education Officer, Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain Mr. Shubham Jain HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 14/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of charge- sheet dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure-11) whereby two charges have been levelled against the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been earlier served with a charge-sheet in terms of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for brevity 'the Rules of 1958') qua the same charges and [2026:RJ-JP:26448] (2 of 3) [CW-11786/2026] vide order dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure-8), the enquiry proceedings qua the said charges stood concluded while giving a written warning to the petitioner. Now again, with a malafide intention, charge-sheet in question has been served in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, for the same charges. Counsel submits that the same is in contravention to law. 3. Heard the counsel. Perused the record. 4. A bare perusal of charge-sheet dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure- 6) served on the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 reflects that vide the same, it was alleged that the petitioner did not permit one of the teachers to rejoin the services despite there being an interim order passed in his favour. 5. Keeping into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not competent to do so without the sanction of the higher authorities, the proceedings concluded with a warning to the petitioner. 6. However, a perusal of the impugned charge-sheet reflects that the charges as levelled against the petitioner are to the effect that he cancelled the attendance of the incumbent therein without any valid reason and further, removed the documents pertaining to the ordinary leave and medical leave applications of the incumbent therein, from the record. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not sanction the leaves of the said teacher despite applications in accordance with law having been filed by him. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be concluded that the impugned charge-sheet has been served for the same charges which had been levelled earlier under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. [2026:RJ-JP:26448] (3 of 3) [CW-11786/2026] 8. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 10/KASHISH