[2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 349/2019 The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel (A-III), Government Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Moola Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Dayala Ramji, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Col.III/2, Colonisation Colony, J.N. Vyas Nagar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)- ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 22/01/2026 1. The appellant-State has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition filed by the respondent petitioner (hereinafter referred as petitioner) whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 02.01.1996 and 06.03.1999 were quashed and the petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Sankalp Vijay, appeared on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that while the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Chatargarh No. 1, under the office of the Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, he was issued a [2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-349/2019] show-cause notice dated 09.09.1983 in respect of an order passed by him on 15.05.1979 in six files relating to alleged trespass by certain villagers. Subsequently, the petitioner dropped the proceedings by allowing the review petitions filed in respect of those orders. Thereafter, for the above conduct, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 17.10.1985 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge- sheet, which pertained to matters which were more than six years old. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority; however, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, by order dated 20.10.1986, held the petitioner guilty of the charges as levelled against him and imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order dated 20.10.1986 was put to challenge by the petitioner by way of statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and quashed the punishment order dated 20.10.1986 vide its order dated 12.08.1988. 5. The appellate authority, while allowing the appeal, directed the appellant-State authorities to consider the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Bikaner, and to pass the necessary orders in accordance with law. In terms of that, the petitioner again, as directed, submitted his reply denying charges, however, the matter remained pending for long period and [2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-349/2019] thereafter, it was decided to hold enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16(4) of CCA Rules, for which, vide order dated 12.04.1989, the Additional Commissioner II, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of appointing the Enquiry Officer dated 12.04.1989 was subsequently cancelled pursuant to a disagreement note dated 23.03.1994, whereafter, the petitioner was again asked to submit his explanation. It is after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 13.07.1995, the disciplinary authority once again held the petitioner guilty of charges and was punished him again with the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 7. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition under the Rules of 1958, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.03.1999. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that, despite the fact that the authorities of the appellant twice considered the case of the petitioner and granted sufficient opportunity of hearing and then passed the punishment as mentioned above. However, the learned Single Judge, without considering the seriousness of the allegation levelled against the petitioner pursuant to which a charge-sheet was issued under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, quashed the impugned punishment orders dated 02.01.1996 and 06.03.1999. Learned counsel further submitted that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are well- reasoned and were passed strictly following procedure under [2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-349/2019] Rules. Therefore, there was no basis for the learned Single Judge to quash the orders dated 02.01.1996 and 06.03.1999. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant considered the case of the petitioner objectively and strictly in accordance with settled law with regard to the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge is perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State and submitted that the petitioner was issued the impugned show cause notice in the year 1983 in respect of orders, had passed by him in the year 1979, for which the petitioner had submitted his explanation and justification, as he passed those orders being the competent authority at that time, which was also reviewed in accordance with law. It was found by appellate authority in first round that there was no misconduct on the part of petitioner, therefore, the first punishment order dated 20.10.1986 passed by the disciplinary authority was rightly quashed. However, the matter was reopened and again the same punishment was imposed despite there being no change in facts and circumstances. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner was promoted on the higher post in the year 1986. Therefore, the order impugned, as challenged before learned Single Judge, was without authority, as the petitioner was no longer under the control of the Chairman, Board of Revenue. [2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-349/2019] 12. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no ill motive or extraneous consideration on the petitioner’s part while passing the orders in the year 1979 and, therefore, there was no basis for the disciplinary authority to impose any punishment. These facts were rightly considered by the learned Single Judge in terms of the law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed in the judgment. Consequently, learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and the orders impugned were quashed. He, therefore, supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and prayed that this appeal filed by the appellant- State be dismissed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The issue involved in the matter pertains to the year 1979, when the petitioner while working on the post of Tehsildar and passed certain orders regarding certain persons whom he initially found to be trespasser. Later on, reviewed its decision in the review petition as filed before him. In respect of these orders of 1979, a show cause notice in the year 1983 and a charge-sheet was served on 17.10.1985 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1985. 15. This Court considered the fact that despite the reasoned replies repeatedly submitted by the petitioner and quashing of the first punishment order dated 20.10.1986 by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was again punished with the same punishment in respect of the same charges, which does not show any ill will or extraneous consideration on the part of petitioner in passing the orders at that time. Learned counsel for the State failed to counter the reason recorded by learned Single Judge in the order. The petitioner passed the orders in 1979 being the [2026:RJ-JP:3045-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-349/2019] competent authority, thereafter reviewed the same by following the applicable provisions. After going through the record of the case and considering the detailed and reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2018, this Court fails to find any convincing reason to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge. 16. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. Consequently, the present appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. All pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /61