[2026:RJ-JP:545] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18566/2025 Suresh Sharma, S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, R/o 239, Rajiv Nagar, Basni, Phase I, Jodhpur-342005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, A-Block, Pwd, Jacob Road, Jaipur-302004 2. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Main Building Bhagwan Das Road, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 3. Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Agra Bye Pass, Jaipur-302004, Through Its Managing Director. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Dangi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 08/01/2026 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the charge- sheet dated 30.05.2025 issued to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, who served as Project Director, RSRDCL, Unit II, Jodhpur from 10.10.2010 to 27.04.2021, as a company under the administrative control of the Public Works Department. It is submitted that RSRDCL, Unit II was assigned with the task of construction of the new High Court building at [2026:RJ-JP:545] (2 of 4) [CW-18566/2025] Jodhpur and, on account of allegations of malpractice in procuring the material used for the construction of the new Rajasthan High Court building at Jodhpur, resulting in certain damages, destruction and deficiencies of a fundamental character, as a result of which, being the Project Director, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.05.2025 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services CCA Rules. 3. It is submitted that by way of the present petition, the writ jurisdiction of this Court is pleaded to be invoked, as no preliminary investigation or inquiry has been conducted, which is sine qua non for initiating disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that even the committee report is vague and the expert could not comment upon the deficiencies and has referred the matter to the IIT. It is further submitted that in the light of the said deficiencies, the charge-sheet is without any cogent foundation, vague and bypasses the statutory mandate. 4. In this regard, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1222/1998 titled as S.S. Darbhali Vs. Union of India and Ors. and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1505/1987 titled as Sukhraj Singh Vs. High Court of Rajasthan and Ors., the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “21. In our view, it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition against the issuing of charge-sheet. The High Court can entertain a petition under Article 226 against the issue of a charge-sheet, if the charges are found to be groundless or void ab initio or when such charge-sheet has been issued without jurisdiction or is capricious or mala fide use of power or on baseless [2026:RJ-JP:545] (3 of 4) [CW-18566/2025] grounds and there has been total non-application of mind. It is no doubt correct that the High Court will not substitute its own judgment or sit in appeal unless a finality is reached by exhausting all the remedies available to the public servant under the relevant service Rules. But where the charges are found to be groundless or void ab initio or on baseless grounds or there is no iota of evidence to frame such charges or there is non-application of mind of the disciplinary authority to the admitted facts, this court can certainly pass suitable orders in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 5. Heard and considered. 6. In the matter in hand, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing this petition challenging the charge-sheet, which is based on disputed questions of fact. It is an admitted fact that there were damages and deficiencies of grave and fundamental nature, in the new Rajasthan High Court building and that the petitioner was the Project Director for a significant period, this prima facie affirms the charges so framed and imposed, however, to ascertain disputed questions of fact, the High Court is not the appropriate forum. 7. Thence, it can be noted that the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. In disciplinary proceedings, High Court is not and cannot act as second court of first appeal. No inquiry in facts [2026:RJ-JP:545] (4 of 4) [CW-18566/2025] is to be done in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on plethora of Apex Court judgments, including Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran: (2015) 2 SCC 610, Regional Manager, UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj: (2022) 5 SCC 695, Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 5626, V Ramana vs. APSRTC & Ors.: (2005) 7 SCC 327, and CISF vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey: 2023 (2) SLR 835 (SC). 8. In view of the above, no interference is called for and the petition is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to raise all objections against the impugned charge-sheet before the appropriate forum, as prescribed in law. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /57