[2026:RJ-JP:7874] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14477/2025 Dr. Vijay Singh Yadav Son Of Shri Hari Singh Yadav, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of D- 1B, Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Siksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 4. Prof. Keshav Sharma, Joint Director (H.r.d.), College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chinmaya Saxena, Asstt. GC, Ms. Ritika Naruka, AAAG, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar, Adv. for Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 19/02/2026 1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner with following prayers:- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the relevant record of the case may kindly be called and after perusal of the same, the writ petition may kindly be allowed; and i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the chargesheet dated 28.08.2025 and the department [2026:RJ-JP:7874] (2 of 5) [CW-14477/2025] enquiry in pursuance thereof, may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) Any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the cost be awarded in favour of the petitioner; iv) By any other appropriate order or directions which are deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner and in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier an order dated 02.09.2024 was issued by the Joint Director (H.R.D.) College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby amount of Rs.11,953/- along with interest was sought to be recovered from the petitioner and the then Principal. Therefore, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15747/2024 by raising a plea that no such recovery can be effected against the petitioner without following principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also tried to obtain copies of relevant documents but such documents were not made available to the petitioner on the pretext that writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner was pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed amount has already been deposited by the Co-delinquent. 4. Learned counsel submits that now the petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’) alleging misconduct relating to the aforesaid matter. Learned counsel submits that although, reply to the charge-sheet has not been given, however, on account of the [2026:RJ-JP:7874] (3 of 5) [CW-14477/2025] fact that the relevant documents have not been made available to the petitioner, he is unable to file effective reply to the charge- sheet. 5. Mr. Chinmaya Saxena, Asstt. GC for Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG appears and accepts notices on behalf of the respondents. 6. It has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13682/2024) decided on 05.03.2025 that without filing reply to the charge-sheet, same cannot be challenged until and unless there is a plea that the charge-sheet has been issued by incompetent authority or against the statutory rules. The petitioner has not raised any such ground. 7. This Court also had the occasion to deal with similar question in the case of Ummed Singh Nathwat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2366/2001) decided on 09.04.2025, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- “18. So far as the scope of challenging the charge- sheet issued under CCA Rules, a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Raj. And ors.:SBCWPNo.13682/2024, decided on 05.03.2025, this Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56 as well as another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 311, held that normally a charge-sheet a charge-sheet cannot be quashed prior to conclusion of the enquiry and this Court has explicitly held in the aforesaid judgment that a writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. It has also been held that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of [2026:RJ-JP:7874] (4 of 5) [CW-14477/2025] the charge-sheet at the initial stage must submit his/her reply before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.” 8. Grievance of the petitioner that the issue of recovery from petitioner is under challenge in earlier Writ Petition No.15747/2024 and the charge-sheet has been issued during the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, is totally misconceived for the reason that earlier the petitioner raised a plea of non-compliance of principles of natural justice and now, in order to provide complete opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, memorandum under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 along with charge-sheet and statements of charges has been served upon the petitioner. 9. Bare perusal of the memorandum dated 28.08.2025 would make it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to inspect the relevant documents or to take extract of such documents by submitting an application specifying such documents. 10. In view of above, there is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition and same is hereby disposed of. 11. However, mere disposal of the writ petition would not take away the rights of the petitioner to inspect the relevant documents/to take extract of the documents during inspection or to obtain copies of relevant documents. In case, any application to that effect is filed by the petitioner, same shall be considered and decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. Immediately after having opportunity of inspection/receiving the relevant documents, the petitioner shall file reply to the charge-sheet, which shall be objectively considered by the respondents and only thereafter, they shall proceed further. [2026:RJ-JP:7874] (5 of 5) [CW-14477/2025] 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /9