[2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1556/2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11379/2017 Chetan Singh S/o Shri Ram Karan Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village And Post Gadota, Tehsil Dudu District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent Of Police, G.R.P., Ajmer (Rajasthan) 3. Addl. Director General Of Police (Railways), Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. N. Kumawat Mr. Shantanu Kumawat Mr. Naval Kishore Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan Mr. Aakash Mewara Mr. Epsa Nangalia Ms. Sunita Meena Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 07/04/2026 This special appeal is directed against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that while working as Constable, GRP Police, Ajmer, the appellant was served with a [2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1556/2019] charge-sheet under Rules 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958) vide memorandum dated 07.02.1997. After conducting the enquiry as per the procedure prescribed, vide order dated 24.10.1997, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the penalty of removal from service. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 02.06.1998. The aforesaid order was assailed by the appellant by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.676/1999 wherein, the only contention advanced by his learned counsel was qua the quantum of punishment. It was argued that the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. While deciding the writ petition vide order dated 20.11.2015, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of punishment and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service. The aforesaid order was assailed by the respondents by way of DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 428/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2017 with a slight modification in the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellant will not be reinstated till fresh decision was taken. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.04.2017, the punishment of his demotion to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Constable with forfeiture of past services was inflicted. The writ petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.08.2019, impugned in the instant appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1556/2019] Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. Inviting attention of this Court towards Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, he would contend that it provides if a Government Servant is reduced, as a major penalty, to a lower stage in his time scale, the period for which it shall be effective shall be specified which has not been done in the instant case. Further, he contended that while imposing the punishment, he was discriminated upon qua Jamna Lal Meena. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the order impugned dated 13.08.2019 be quashed and set-aside and the writ petition be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard. Considered. Finding the charges levelled against the appellant vide memorandum dated 07.02.1997 under Rules 16/18 of the CCA, Rules 1958, to be proved, the penalty of removal from service was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24.10.1997 which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 02.06.1998. In the Civil Writ Petition No.676/1999 preferred by the appellant thereagainst, he did not assail the validity of the enquiry rather, assailed the penalty order only qua quantum. The writ petition came to be decided by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.11.2015 with following directions:- [2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1556/2019] “Consequently, the impugned order of inflecting penalty of removal from service dated 24th October, 1997 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.06.1998; are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment less than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service. The exercise aforesaid shall be concluded by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” Pursuant thereto, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 20.04.2017, modified the penalty order and inflicted the punishment of his demotion with fixation at the minimum of pay scale on the post of Constable with forfeiture of services from 24.10.1997 till rejoining. The aforesaid order as also the consequential order dated 21.04.2017 extending fresh appointment to the post of Constable was assailed by the appellant by way of Civil Writ Petition No.11379/2017 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order impugned dated 13.08.2019. A perusal of the order impugned reflects that only contentions advanced by his counsel were qua discrimination with his colleague Shri Jamna Lal and the modified penalty still being disproportionate. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that while deciding the earlier writ petition preferred by him vide order dated 20.11.2015, the Court has already directed the Disciplinary Authority to award the punishment lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service and the punishment awarded was lesser than the earlier penalty and therefore, warranted no interference. [2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1556/2019] Taking into consideration the conspectus of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not convinced that the order impugned dated 13.08.2019 suffers from any such illegality and perversity so as to warrant interference in this intra court appeal. So far as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, we find no merit in the same. Indisputably, the appellant was inflicted with the penalty of removal from service after conducting the regular inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 validity whereof was not assailed by him during the course of arguments in the earlier writ petition No.676/1999 preferred thereagainst. The order of penalty of removal from service was interfered with only qua quantum and while remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, it was observed that the punishment be reconsidered lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service. Indisputably, the modified punishment is lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service. His contention based on Rule 34 of the Rules 1951 is wholly misconceived inasmuch as, the appellant has been given fresh appointment as Constable vide order dated 21.04.2017 pursuant to the punishment order dated 20.04.2017 and would be entitled for grade increments etc. as per law, a position not disputed even by the learned counsel for the respondents. So far as his contention qua discrimination with colleague Jamna Lal is concerned, we find that no discrimination was meted to the appellant as the facts of both the cases were different. Even otherwise, while deciding his earlier writ petition, the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary [2026:RJ-JP:14267-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1556/2019] Authority to re-consider the punishment lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service which was not assailed by the appellant and thus, attained finality. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that indisputably, the modified punishment is lesser than the punishment of removal/dismissal from service. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the special appeal which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Gourav Dhamija /401