[2026:RJ-JP:950] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3831/2013 Naveen Tyagi son late Sh. Baliram Tyagi, aged 35 years, R/o 5-B, Jank Puri-II, Imli Phatak, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Department of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Superintendent of Police, (Headquarters) Jaipur. 3. Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I, Jaipur. 4. Dy. Secretary Department of Home (Group II), Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sara Parveen, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC with Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 09/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 04.04.2007, whereby after conducting enquiry under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, penalty of censure has been awarded. He has further assailed the orders dated 23.10.2007 and 12.01.2011, whereby appeal as well as review filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner Late Sh. Baliram Tyagi was in service of Police Department and was allotted upper subordinate quarter No.3 at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. He died while in service [2026:RJ-JP:950] (2 of 5) [CW-3831/2013] and in place of him, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that soon after his appointment, he submitted an application for allotment of Government accommodation. However, under the verbal assurance, he continued in the same quarter which was allotted to his deceased father. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for around 10 years no decision whatsoever was taken on the application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of Government accommodation and first time an order dated 18.05.2006 was served upon the petitioner intimating that the allotment of Government accommodation to his deceased father has been cancelled. In the aforesaid order, the petitioner was also directed to vacate premises. The aforesaid order was followed by notices dated 08.06.2006, 02.08.2006 and 08.08.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the first notice for vacating the premises was received by the petitioner in May 2006, he tried to locate for alternate accommodation and as he was residing with his family, it was not possible for the petitioner to vacate the premises immediately. However, after receiving such notice and after searching for suitable accommodation, the Government premises were vacated by the petitioner on 21.08.2006. 4. In the meanwhile, one charge-sheet dated 08.08.2006 under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner containing as many as 2 charges relating to not vacating the Government accommodation despite cancellation of allotment and [2026:RJ-JP:950] (3 of 5) [CW-3831/2013] despite notice dated 18.05.2006 as well as of insubordination and violation of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid charge-sheet was replied by the petitioner in which it was stated that after receiving cancellation order and notice for vacation, he submitted an application for granting him advance pay so that he can arrange for suitable accommodation on rent and on account of not getting such advance amount from the Government, he could not arrange the house immediately, however, the same was vacated by the petitioner, therefore, request was made to drop the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ignoring the bonafides of the petitioner as well as his genuine requirement, where immediately on getting compassionate appointment the petitioner himself submitted an application for Government accommodation and no such accommodation was allotted to him and even the Government accommodation which was earlier allotted to his father, after his death, such allotment was cancelled. Immediately after cancellation, the Government accommodation was also vacated by the petitioner, still without due application of mind and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures the penalty order dated 04.04.2007 was passed, whereby penalty of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed departmental appeal which was also dismissed mechanically vide order dated 23.10.2007 and thereafter, even the review filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2011. [2026:RJ-JP:950] (4 of 5) [CW-3831/2013] 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the impugned penalty the petitioner has got unblemished career and the penalty of censure is causing a blot in his career and is thus causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, however, this aspect has neither been duly appreciated either by the disciplinary authority or thereafter, by appellate and reviewing authorities. 8. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that penalty order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority after examining the entire record including the reply filed by the petitioner and after appreciating that without there being any valid allotment, the petitioner has unauthorizedly continued in the house which was earlier allotted to his deceased father and soon after his death, the allotment stood automatically cancelled, yet the formal order of cancellation of allotment was also served upon the petitioner and he was directed to vacate the premises. Even after unauthorizedly retaining for 10 years and receiving the notice from the department, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, which prompted the competent authority to issue charge-sheet and only on account of the fact that in the meanwhile, the premises were vacated, a lenient view was taken by the Disciplinary Authority and minor penalty of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner which requires no interference. The order of the penalty has further been scrutinized by the Appellate Authority as well as Reviewing Authority, therefore, there is no force in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and he prayed for rejecting the same. [2026:RJ-JP:950] (5 of 5) [CW-3831/2013] 9. Heard and considered. 10. It is settled proposition of law that in the matter of departmental enquiry, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very very limited. In the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any material perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The penalty of censure also can not be said to be disproportionate the guilt of the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has unauthorizedly used the Government accommodation for more than 10 years, no error is found in the impugned orders and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /45