[2026:RJ-JP:6942] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5015/2025 Surajbhan Jat S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jat, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village - Jharna, Post - Mahalan, Tehsil - Mojmabad,, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Through Its Managing Director Head Office Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Joint Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Deputy Director (Q.c.), Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Ojla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/02/2026 1. By way of filing this present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby, penalty of withholding three grade increments with cumulative effect along with recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.22,46,808/- from salary of petitioner has been imposed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the penalty order dated 18.12.2023, an appeal was filed by the petitioner under Regulation 14 of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1974 raising legitimate grounds for assailing the penalty order. However, appeal [2026:RJ-JP:6942] (2 of 3) [CW-5015/2025] has been decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.02.2025, wherein the grounds specifically raised by the petitioner have neither been taken note of, nor discussed, nor any finding has been given over such grounds. Thus, order passed by the Appellate Authority is quite cryptic, vague and mechanical therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the cases where, the Appellate Authority decides to confirm the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority is not required to assign detailed reasons and the reasons howsoever brief assigned in order dated 05.02.2025 are sufficient for the purpose of deciding the appeal filed by the delinquent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the Regulations of 1974, the provisions with regard to discipline and appeal have been given in part 1st. Regulation 14 of part 1st deals with the orders against which, appeal lies and Regulation 18 deals with consideration of appeal. 6. Bare perusal of Regulation 18 of Part 1st appended to the Regulations of 1974 makes it clear that in the case, where appeal has been filed by the delinquent against any penalty order then, the Appellate Authority is required to give its finding after considering the grounds raised in memo of appeal. In the instant case, this Court finds that no reason whatsoever have been assigned by the Appellate Authority except that the delinquent has not raised any new point therefore, the order passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:6942] (3 of 3) [CW-5015/2025] Appellate Authority is totally non-speaking and vague order, which has been passed in utter disregard of aforesaid Regulation 18. 7. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2023. The petitioner shall also be entitled to raise additional ground, if so advised during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal expeditiously but not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /8