[2026:RJ-JP:432] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4918/2003 Shri Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Sanwal Singh, aged about 51 years, R/o Opposite Panchayat, Kaman, District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Revenue, Department of Revenue, Secretary, Jaipur. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division Jaipur. 3. The Collector (Land Record) Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary Mr. Lokesh Sharma for Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/01/2026 1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.03.1994 whereby, penalty of deduction of pay to the lowest stage has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has further assailed the appellate order dated 30.05.1997 whereby, appeal against the penalty order has been rejected as well as order dated 18.09.2002 whereby review petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that one charge-sheet dated 12.02.1986 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 containing as many as five charges. He filed reply to the charge-sheet denying all the allegations against him and also demanded copies of relevant documents, which was not supplied to him. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and [2026:RJ-JP:432] (2 of 5) [CW-4918/2003] before the Enquiry Officer, opportunity of cross-examining the management witnesses has not been provided to him and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his representation against the enquiry report pointing out the legal flaws and defects in the enquiry however, ignoring the same, the disciplinary authority passed a penalty order on 30th March 1994 whereby, penalty of deduction of pay to the lowest stage has been imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, he filed departmental appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 challenging the penalty order dated 30th March 1994 wherein, so many grounds pointing out violation of procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958 as well as non-compliance of principles of natural justice were raised, although, the appellate authority was under a legal obligation to consider all the grounds yet, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30th May 1997 in quite mechanical manner by a non-speaking order, which is in violation of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer by giving complete opportunity of hearing and defence to the petitioner and there is no illegality in the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority while passing the penalty order has also examined the entire record as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report and looking to the nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner, penalty was awarded to the petitioner vide order [2026:RJ-JP:432] (3 of 5) [CW-4918/2003] dated 30th March 1994, which is in consonance with the misconduct of the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Counsel further submits that the appellate authority is not required to pass a detailed speaking order in the cases where, he concurs with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and only in the cases where, the order is reversed by the appellate authority, it is required to pass a detailed order. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case where, misconduct of the petitioner is clearly proved and the disciplinary authority has already taken note of all such facts and circumstances, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the appellate authority. Further, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has been examined in review by reviewing authority where also no illegality has been found either in the order of the disciplinary authority or order passed by the appellate authority. It is objected by Government counsel that the scope of interference in the writ petition under Article 226 more particularly, in the matter of disciplinary enquiry is extremely limited and the view taken by the disciplinary authority cannot be substituted by the Writ Court therefore, no interference is called for in the instant petition and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record. 6. In order to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to violation of procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958 and violation of principles of natural justice, this Court perused the memo of appeal filed by the [2026:RJ-JP:432] (4 of 5) [CW-4918/2003] petitioner against the penalty order, in which specific grounds have been raised by the petitioner pointing out that he has been deprived of proper defence as well as necessary documents were also not furnished to him. The plea with regard to not granting the opportunity of cross-examination has also been raised in the memo of appeal however, while deciding the appeal vide order dated 30th May 1997, no such ground has ever been considered by the appellate authority and by passing cryptic order, appeal has been decided in one para. 7. Rule 30 of Rules 1958 makes it obligatory for the appellate authority to consider each and every legitimate objection raised by the delinquent against the penalty order. Such consideration cannot be said to be empty formality and the appellate authority is required to exercise its judicious mind while deciding the delinquent's appeal. None of the ground raised in memo of appeal was taken note of by the Appellate Authority, nor is there any consideration or finding over such grounds of appeal. Hence, the order dated 30.05.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking and unreasoned order contrary to spirit of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set-aside. Hence, under these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of by remanding the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division Jaipur (Appellate Authority) for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and to pass a speaking order after giving finding over the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal. 8. In the light of the fact that the aforesaid matter is quite old the appellate authority is expected to decide the appeal [2026:RJ-JP:432] (5 of 5) [CW-4918/2003] expeditiously and preferrably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/31