[2026:RJ-JP:5025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1253/2026 Deepak Tandi S/o Sukhram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bamaniya, District Churu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj. 2. Additional Director General Of Police, Armed Battalions, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Rac, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Company Commander, Headquarters Staff Company, 13Th Battalion Rac (Jail Security), Chainpura, Jaipura. 5. Company Commander, E Company, 13Th Battalion RAC (Jail Security), Central Jail, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Nakul Bansal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/02/2026 1. Order 03/02/2026 1. Petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition, has challenged charge-sheet dated 07.11.2025 issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which contains following five charges:- “vkjksi la[;k&1%& ;g gS vki Jh nhid VkaMh] dkfu- pkyd 598 ¼fuyfEcr½ eq[;ky; LVkQ daiuh] 13oha cVkfy;u] vkj-,-lh- ¼tsy lqj{kk½ pSuiqjk t;iqj ij dkfuLVscy pkyd ds in ij inLFkkfir gS] inLFkkiu ds nkSjku fnukad 13-12-2024 dks vkidks ftyk dkjkx`g&ckMesj M~;wVh gsrq cVkfy;u eq[;ky; ls jokuk fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq vki ftyk dkjkx`g&ckMesj M~;wVh ij ugha tkdj cVkfy;u eq[;ky; ls Qjkj gks x;s] vkidk mDr d`R; [2026:RJ-JP:5025] (2 of 5) [CW-1253/2026] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns”kksa dh Li’V vogsyuk gS rFkk vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh mnklhurk] LosPNkpkfjrk ,oa vuq”kklughurk dk |ksrd gSA vkjksi la[;k&2%& ;g gS fd vki Jh nhid VkaMh] dkfu- pkyd 598 ¼fuyfEcr½ eq[;ky; LVkQ fcuk fdlh l{ke Lohd`fr ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks lwfpr fd;s gh LosPNk ls fnukad 13-12-2024 ls 10-06-2025 rd dqy 180 fnu xSj gkftj jgs gSaA vkidk ;g d`R; jktLFkku flfoy lsok fu;e 1951 ds fu;e 86 dk vfrdze.k djrk gSA tsy lqj{kk tSlh vfr&laosnu”khy M~;wVh ls fcuk fdlh Lohd`fr ds LosPNk ls viuh M~;wVh ls xSj gkftj jguk vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk] LosPNkpkfjrk ,oa vuq”kklughurk dk |ksrd gS lkFk gh vkj,lh tSls vuq”kkflr cy dh Nfo ,oa xfjek ds fo:) gksdj vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds vuq”kklu ij foijhr izHkko Mkyus okyk gSA vkjksi la[;k&03%& ;g gS fd vki Jh nhid VkaMh] dkfu- pkyd 598 ¼fuyfEcr½ eq[;ky; LVkQ vkidks viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gkssus ckcr~ bl dk;kZy; ds ia=kd 97 fnukad 20-01-2025] 193&94 fnukad] 13-02-2025] 402&03 fnukad 03-04-2025] 575&76 fnukad 02-05-2025 ,oa daiuh dek.Mj eq[;ky; LVkQ ds dk;kZy; ia=kd 510&12 fnukad 16-12-2024] 17&18 fnukad 08-01-2025] 134&36 fnukad 25-03-2025] 208&09 fnukad 22-05-2025 ds }kjk dqy 08 fjdkWy uksfVl tkjh dj vkidks lwfpr fd;s tkus ds ckotwn vki viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gq, gSa] vkidk ;g d`R; vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk] LosPNkpkfjrk ,oa vuq”kklughurk dk |ksrd gSA vkjksi la[;k&04%& ;g gS fd vki Jh nhid VkaMh] dkfu- pkyd 598 ¼fuyfEcr½ eq[;ky; LVkQ daiuh 13oh cVkfy;u vkj-,-lh- ¼tsy lqj{kk½ pSuiqjk t;iqj] vkids fo:) fnukad 31-05-2025 dks ,QvkbZvkj la[;k 290@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk egs”k uxj t;iqj ij ntZ gqbZ ftlds laca/k esa vkius bl dk;kZy; dks voxr ugha djokdj rF;ksa dks Nqik;k gS] tcfd ljdkjh lsokesa jgs gq, vkidk nkf;Ro Fkk fd vkids fo:) ntZ izdj.k ds laca/k esa rRdky vius foHkkx dks lwfpr fd;k tkrkA ;g jktLFkku flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 4 ds [k.M 4?k ds vUrxZr vokpkj dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA vkidk mDr d`R; vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] LosPNkpkfjrk] vuq”kklughurk] vdeZ.;rk ,oa foHkkx dh Nfo /kqfey djus okyk gSA vkjksi la[;k&05%& ;g gS fd vkids }kjk vius inh; drZO;ksa ds foijhr vkijkf/kd vkpj.k djus ij vkids fo:) vfHk;ksx la[;k 290@2025 fnukad 31-05-2025 vUrxZr /kkjk 189¼2½] 115¼2½] 127¼2½] 303¼2½ o 352 Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk ¼ch ,u ,l½ 2023 esa iqfyl Fkkuk egs”k uxj t;iqj esa iathc) gqvk gS] ftlls jktLFkku iqfyl o vkj,lh cy dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ gSA vkidk ;g d`R; jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1971 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gSA 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in relation to the same incident, FIR No.290/2025 was lodged at [2026:RJ-JP:5025] (3 of 5) [CW-1253/2026] Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur City (South). Contents of FIR are as under:- “lsok esa] ekuuh; iqfyl v/kh{kd] egs”k uxj Fkkuk] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ fo’k;%& nhid VkaMh o vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk /kedh nsuk ] izfrfuf/k dks ca/kd cukuk] ekjihV] eksckby o xkMh tCr djuk] laifRRk dks uqdlku igqapkuk] pksjh o /kks[kk/kM+h ds laca/k esa ,QvkbZvkj ntZ djus gsrqA egksn;] lfou; fuosnu gS fd eSa fnyhi tSu] fuoklh ,p&18] jkeuxj] lksMkyk t;iqj gwaA esjh gksVy osn foyk] t;iqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlesa ch&36 vkSj ,Q&62 uked nks ;wfuV gSaA bu ;wfuVksa esa nhid VkaMh uked O;fDr voS/k :i ls dCtk djds jg jgk gSA ;g O;fDr [kqn dks iqfyl okyk crkdj /kedkrk gS] dgrk gS fd og fdjk;k ugha nsxk] vkSj dkWyksuh esa jkt 14 UL 3751 uacj dh LdkWfiZ;ksa ij yky uacj IysV yxkdj ?kwerk gS] ftlls yksxksa esa Mj o vkrad dk ekgkSy cuk jgk gSA ;g O;fDr nknkfxjh djrk gS] xkyh&xykSt djrk gS] vkSj gj vkus tkus okys dks /kedh nsrk gSA eSaus ;g izkWiVhZ fdlh vU; O;fDr dks fdjk;s ij nh Fkh] ysfdu og O;fDr dHkh mifLFkr ugha feykA nhid VkaMh fcuk vuqefr ds dCtk djds cSB x;k gSA dy jkr ls esjk izfrfuf/k Jh galjkt ykirk FkkA ckn esa tkudkjh feyh fd nhid VkaMh vkSj mlds Ng lkfFk;ksa us mls tcju ca/kd cuk fy;k] ekjihV dh] vkSj mldk eksckby o xkMh tCr dj yhA blls eq>s vkSj esjs ifjokj dks Hkkjh ekufld ruko vkSj [krjk mRiUu gqvk gSA vkids egs”k uxj Fkkus esa fuosnu djus ds i”pkr Fkkuk iqfyl gekjs lkFk ekSds ij xbZ] tgka ls pkj vkjksih idM+s x, vkSj rhu Qjkj gks x,A iqfyl } kjk gekjs izfrfuf/k dks NqM+k;k x;k] vkSj mlds lkFk gqbZ ekjihV ds QksVksa o ohfM;ks lk{; ds :i esa vkids le> izLrqr fd, tk ldrs gSA blds vfrfjDr] nhid VkaMh us izkWiVhZ dh fLFkfr vR;ar [kjkc dj nh gS] fcfYMax ls lkeku xk;c gS] vkSj yxkrkj gekjs yksxksa ds lkFk v”kksHkuh; O;ogkj djrk gSA vkils fuosnu gS fd mDr xaHkhj ? kVukdze ij laKku ysdj nhid VkaMh ,oa vU; lacaf/kr yksxksa ds f[kykQ ,QvkbZvkj ntZ dj dBksj dkjZokbZ dh tk,A lkFk gh] izfrfuf/k galjkt dk esfMdy ijh{k.k djokdj mlds lkFk gqbZ ekjihV vkSj ekufld mRihM+u dh iqf’V dh tk,A vkidh lgk;rk gsrq lnk vkHkkjh jgwaxkA Hkonh;] ¼fnyhi tSu½ eksckby 9314000777 irk ,p&18 jkeuxj] lksMkyk] t;iqj fnukad 31-05-2025-” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet are since identical to the allegations in FIR, therefore, in case, the petitioner is forced to defend the charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings, it would amount to reveal the evidence and defence, which the petitioner would be taking during trial so as to defend himself against the criminal allegations. While relying upon judgment of Hon’ble [2026:RJ-JP:5025] (4 of 5) [CW-1253/2026] Supreme Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 as well as Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. Vs. Rabindra Kumar Bharti reported in (2022) 12 SCC 390, the petitioner has submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly restrained holding of criminal trial and departmental enquiry on identical charges, therefore, under the circumstances, charge-sheet dated 07.11.2025 may either be quashed, or the proceedings may be deferred at least till conclusion of the trial. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of charge-sheet dated 07.11.2025 would make it clear that as regards charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3, they are relating to willful and unauthorized absence as well as in subordination and dereliction of duty and there is not even an iota of resemblance in charges No.1, 2, 3 qua the allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. 6. So far as charge No.4 in the charge-sheet is concerned, apparently it is in relation to an act of suppression of criminal case lodged against the petitioner and there is no reference of details of any allegation in the FIR, therefore, such charge No.4 also cannot be said to have any similarity with the allegations in FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that charge No.5 is identically similar to allegation levelled in the FIR. This Court perused the charge No.5 which simply states that on account of lodging of FIR No.290/2025 at Police Station Mahesh Nagar under the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, image and reputation of Rajasthan Police and RAC has been tarnished, which [2026:RJ-JP:5025] (5 of 5) [CW-1253/2026] is a misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Thus, it is apparent that even for the purpose of justifying charge No.5, the petitioner is not required to place any evidence so as to defend himself for justifying that he has not committed the offence alleged in the FIR. 8. In the case of M. Paul Anthony (Supra) as well as Rabindra Kumar Bharti (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where the allegations in the charge-sheet, in disciplinary proceedings as well as in FIR are not exactly similar, no interference can be made for quashing the charge- sheet/disciplinary proceedings or for issuing a direction to defer the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge-sheet dated 07.11.2025 and criminal trial pursuant to FIR No.290/2025 can proceed parallelly and simultaneously. 9. In view of above, there is no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /51