[2026:RJ-JP:16656] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13148/2025 Surendra Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Parshuram Colony, Behind Government Hospital, Rajgarh, District-Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Managing Director, State Bank Bhawan, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2. Assistant General Manager (Oad), State Bank Of India, Office Administration Department, Local Head Office, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav Mr. Ankit Kumar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal Mr. Laxmikant Tailor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 20/04/2026 1. Heard for final disposal. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) and all other consequential departmental proceedings. 3. The facts disclose that the department has served a charge- sheet alleging that the petitioner impersonated another person in the examination, and fraudulently obtained employment by getting the examination written by such impersonated person. After the charge-sheet was served, a reply to the charge-sheet was submitted. Unsatisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry was also conducted in the present case. The enquiry officer submitted the [2026:RJ-JP:16656] (2 of 3) [CW-13148/2025] report, and, thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge- sheet was challenged on the ground that the entire genesis for the initiation of the present departmental proceedings is an anonymous complaint. Such proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of an anonymous complaint. It is also his grievance that the evidence relied upon by the petitioner in his defense clearly shows that the bio metric data, which is the subject matter of the enquiry, clearly demonstrates that it is his photograph and the thumb impression also belongs to him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charge-sheet is not completely based on an anonymous complaint but an enquiry was conducted, by securing opinion from an expert regarding the material relating to participation in the examination for selection. It is also her contention that any evidence which is beneficial to the delinquent, can be made a ground while submitting a representation to the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, and on that ground he cannot invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case, there are simultaneous departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. While such proceedings are ongoing, the petitioner volunteered to participate in the enquiry, and the enquiry was also concluded. The charge-sheet, which formed the foundation, was not only based on an anonymous complaint but also on a preliminary report obtained from an expert relating to the material collected with regard to the examination conducted for selection to the post for which the [2026:RJ-JP:16656] (3 of 3) [CW-13148/2025] petitioner was appointed, and those preliminary materials, according to the disciplinary authority, prima facie establish that there is a case of impersonation. Based on such report, the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet is without any basis. So far as regard to the evidence which is favourable to the petitioner, the enquiry report is not binding on the disciplinary authority, which is required to re-appreciate the defence to come to the conclusion whether it concurs with the finding of the enquiry officer or not. At that stage, the petitioner has an opportunity to file a representation before consideration of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority. He is given liberty to submit a representation espousing the relevant evidence which is in his favour, and the disciplinary authority is bound to consider such material evidence which the petitioner espoused in the representation, in arriving at a conclusion on the enquiry report. 7. With the said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 135 - BhumikaP/-