[2026:RJ-JP:2975] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2004 Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Charan Sharma, aged about 44 years, R/o 1/500, Kala Kuan, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Department of Health and Medical Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Medical and Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents/Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Verma on behalf of Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/01/2026 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 05.10.1995, whereby penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Eye-Assistant on 18.08.1987. While he was working with Mobile Netra Unit on 17.08.1995, he was served with a show- cause notice under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958') levelling allegation of habitual late comer to the office on the basis of record, where on 39 different occasions his late attendance was recorded. [2026:RJ-JP:2975] (2 of 3) [CW-8241/2004] 4. It is stated by the petitioner that an interim reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by him on 30.08.1995 and thereafter on 19.10.1995, however, ignoring the same, penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, he filed review petition, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2002. 5. The petitioner has challenged the penalty order on account of violation of principles of natural justice and for non- compliance of procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on account of misconduct committed by the petitioner, charge-sheet was issued to him, however, he never filed any reply to the charge-sheet and the letters dated 30.08.1995 & 19.10.1995 cannot be termed as reply to the notice and in fact the same were not received by the Competent Authority. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that although opportunity to file reply to the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner, yet he failed to avail such opportunity under these circumstances, after examining the material on record, minor penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed, which is a minor penalty and is proportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. 8. There is nobody on behalf of the petitioner to counter such arguments as preferred by the learned counsel for the respondents. [2026:RJ-JP:2975] (3 of 3) [CW-8241/2004] 9. This Court upon hearing learned counsel for the respondents and perusal of record, finds that after serving charge- sheet, the petitioner was supposed to file reply to the charge- sheet. Although, it has been contended in the writ petition that despite submitting applications, relevant documents were not given to the petitioner, yet bare perusal of order dated 04.02.2002 passed in review petition filed by the petitioner would reveal that such applications were never received by the Competent Authority. 10. Since, no reply was filed, therefore, defence of the petitioner was not there before the Disciplinary Authority and after examining the record, the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Order of the Disciplinary Authority has further been examined by the Reviewing Authority and the review petition has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2002. Order passed by the Reviewing Authority is a speaking order where all the grounds raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. 11. In view of above, where only minor penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and there appears to be no violation of procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958 or even of principles of natural justice, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/21