[2026:RJ-JP:24582] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10485/2026 URN: CW / 23219U / 2026 Dr. Vidhya Maghanani W/o Dr. Arjun Das Sindhi, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Naveen Hospital, Ghati Road, Malpura, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Directorate Of Medical And Health, Behind Secretariate, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 02/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of charge-sheet (Annex.-4) whereby disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges qua which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated are the same qua which an FIR has already been lodged and the investigation is under process. He submits that if both the proceedings are permitted to continue simultaneously, the defence of the petitioner would definitely hamper. He therefore submits that the disciplinary proceedings be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. In support of his submission Counsel [2026:RJ-JP:24582] (2 of 2) [CW-10485/2026] relied upon the Apex Court judgment in Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.; (1999) 3 SCC 679. 3. After hearing the Counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference at this stage is called for. Admittedly, the FIR in question was registered in the year 2023 and till date, the investigation has not concluded in a Final Report or a charge- sheet, that is to say, the investigation is still undergoing. Until the charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken against the accused while defining the offences, it cannot be presumed that the defence of the petitioner shall be hampered as till date, no criminal proceedings have even commenced. 4. This Court is of the clear opinion that only because the investigation is pending, the departmental/disciplinary proceedings cannot be stayed. 5. So far as the ratio laid down in Capt. M.Paul Anthony (supra) is concerned, the same would definitely not apply to the present matter as herein, no criminal trial has even commenced. 6. So far as the representation filed by the petitioner having not been decided is concerned, definitely the petitioner would now have an opportunity to file his detailed reply raising all his grounds, while filing his reply to the charge-sheet as served on him. 7. No case for interference is made out and the petition is hence, dismissed. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 2/SHIVAM