[2026:RJ-JP:17283] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6814/2026 Manish Sharma Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of B-44, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, First Floor, Chaupal Vishranti Grah, Badodiya Basti (Near Jaipur Junction), Jaipur. 4. The District Collector Cum Chairman District Jal And Swachhata Committee, Baran. 5. The Chief Executive Officer Cum Co-Chairman, Zila Parishad Baran. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5535/2024 Manish Sharma S/o. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. B-44, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Baran (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Swaksh Bharat Mission (Rural), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, 1St Floor, Chaupal Vishranti Grah, Badodiya Basti (Near Jaipur Junction), Jaipur- 302006. 3. District Collector, Baran, Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:17283] (2 of 6) [CW-6814/2026] 4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Baran, Mini Secretariat, Vistar Bhawan, Block- 1St Floor, Collectorate Building, Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Gouttam. Mr. G.S. Gouttam. Ms. Arati Bai Meena Ms. Saakshi Meena Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 23/04/2026 1. On the request and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the present writ petitions are taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5535/2024, has been filed challenging the order of termination dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.6), whereby, the petitioner’s contractual services were terminated and another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6814/2026, has been filed seeking direction to reinstate the petitioner into services in view of the positive inquiry report dated 29.09.2025 (Annex.-5) and he also sought a direction to pay the dues of salary for the period he worked prior to his termination. 3. The order of termination is challenged on the ground that the procedure adopted in taking action of termination has [2026:RJ-JP:17283] (3 of 6) [CW-6814/2026] not been followed. It is also his submission that the petitioner is in direct contractual employment with the respondents and now he is governed by the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Rules to Civil Posts, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2022’). 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a procedure contemplated under the Rules of 2022 that before taking a decision to terminate the services of petitioner, notice is required to be issued. In the present matter, such a procedure has not been followed. It is also his contention that the basis of termination was show cause notices and the said notices do not indicate any proposed action except indicating certain lapses on the part of the petitioner, which would amount to violations of the conditions mentioned under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2022. For taking action for the alleged violations under the conditions prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2022, the required procedure is contemplated, which is not followed. According to him, the required procedure was that they have to indicate in the show cause notices with regard to alleged violations and the proposed action and sufficient time is required to be given for submitting reply and based on the reply, appropriate orders are required to be passed. 5. It is also his submission that the respondents, after the issuance of notices, have constituted an enquiry committee to enquire the violations alleged in various show cause notices. Basing on such notices, an enquiry committee was appointed and the findings of the committee are in favour of [2026:RJ-JP:17283] (4 of 6) [CW-6814/2026] the petitioner and basing on such findings, the petitioner sought rejoining into the duties, but no decision was taken. It is also his submission that the petitioner’s salary for the period he worked with the respondents, prior to his termination has also not been paid. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action taken was not on account of any single notice, which was lastly issued on 24.11.2023. Prior to the said notice, there were multiple notices dated 27.01.2023, 29.09.2023, 26.10.2023 and 20.11.2023, whereunder, there are allegations of dissatisfaction with regard to progress of the work, for which, he was engaged and there is also allegation of willful absence from the duties without any permission. It is also his submission that the petitioner also submitted his reply and the reply was considered and only thereafter, appropriate decision of termination of services has been taken in terms of Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Rules of 2022. 7. Having considered the above submissions and having seen various notices issued by the respondents, the contents of notices only indicating violations as well as dissatisfaction on the part of the respondents. All those notices are not indicating any proposed action for the violations and dissatisfaction of services. The show cause notice, which is required to be issued under the Rule 18 of the Rules of 2022, must indicate the violation as well as the proposed action to be taken by the respondents. 8. In the last show cause notice issued to the petitioner as well as other notice, there was no proposed action, as such, the [2026:RJ-JP:17283] (5 of 6) [CW-6814/2026] said notices are not in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules of 2022. On this ground alone, the entire action taken under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2022, is required to be set aside. 9. Dealing with the power under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2022, the Rule 19 also enables the Appointing Authority to terminate the services of the petitioner not on a stigmatic nature, but on the ground of dissatisfaction with regard to his services or on the ground that the services of the employee is no more required. For taking action under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2022, there is requirement of three months’ prior notice: alternatively, they have to pay three months’ salary in lieu of the notice and the notice also must indicate the reason, on which, they are proposing action. Though the reason of dissatisfaction is indicated in several notices, but there is no proposed action of termination on the ground of dissatisfaction of performance and there is no compliance of three months’ notice or payment of salary in lieu thereafter, therefore, the action under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2022, is also unsustainable. The direction sought by the petitioner with regard to reinstatement could not have been ordered by the Authority for the reason that there is a termination order, which has been passed by the respondents rightly or wrongly, unless such termination order is set aside. 10. The petitioner also claimed certain relief regarding dues of salary for the period, he worked. If any such dues are there, the respondents are required to verify and if such dues [2026:RJ-JP:17283] (6 of 6) [CW-6814/2026] which found for the period prior to the termination, the same are required to be paid. 11. Resultantly, both the present writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order of termination dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.6 in SBCWP No. 5535/2024), is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and also directed to pay half of the wages. 12. The liberty is given to the respondents to take action on the alleged grounds claimed by the respondents by duly following the procedure. 13. The respondents are also directed to verify the claim of the petitioner with regard to any arrears of salary, which the petitioner is entitled for the period, he worked prior to his termination. If any such due is found, the same shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt a copy of this order. 14. The exercise regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J architp/12-13