[2026:RJ-JP:13983] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7360/2021 Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Shri Nimba Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 71/109, Near Kendriya Vidyalaya (K.v. No. 5), Mamnsarovar, Jaipur. Presently Working On The Post Of Probation And Prison Welfare Officer At The Office Of Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ambedkar Bhawan, G-3/1, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur. 3. The Deputy Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitosh Pareek, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "The impugned punishment order dated 10.06.2016, appellate order dated 15.09.2016 and review order dated 08.04.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside with further direction to the Respondents to convert the absent period of petitioner from dated 30.06.2015 to 03.08.2015 without pay into medical leave by granting her benefit for further promotion in service exonerating [2026:RJ-JP:13983] (2 of 6) [CW-7360/2021] her from minor punishment of censure with all consequential service benefits. ii) Any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioner along with cost of writ petition." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have issued a charge memo on the basis of unauthorized absent from 30th June 2015 to 3rd August 2015 and further found her guilty for misconduct and awarded a punishment to her, without assigning any reason. He further submits that an appeal is preferred and same was also dismissed by the appellate authority, without opportunity of hearing. He further referred order of review and submits that a review was filed, but same was also dismissed in mechanical manner. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident on 30th June, 2015 and for which FIR No. 198/2015 was registered wherein a charge sheet was filed against the car driver. He further submits that due to the injuries suffered in accident, the petitioner could not attend her office and submitted a medical certificate, but same was not accepted by the respondents. He submits that the reason for medical leave is well explained by the petitioner but same has not been considered sympathetically by the respondents. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has deliberately remained absent from duty and she has not joined despite the fact that she was transferred to a different place. He also submitted that the FIR is also registered after a delay and the reasons as mentioned by the petitioner are not [2026:RJ-JP:13983] (3 of 6) [CW-7360/2021] convincing. He also submitted that the respondents have acted in accordance with law after the inquiry, the claim of the petitioner was found false, hence she was found guilty and rightly punished by the respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Probation and Prison Welfare Officer and by order dated 30.06.2015, she was transferred to Jaipur and directed to join within 24 hours. The petitioner instead of joining at new place remained absent. A notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a leave application along with medical leave certificate on the ground that on 30.06.2015, she sustained injuries due to an accident with a car. The petitioner was found guilty under Rule 17 of he Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1958'), and she was given a punishment of censure. The period from 30.06.2015 to 03.08.2015 was considered as without pay. The petitioner has filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 15.09.2016. The petitioner has submitted a review petition and same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Governor. After the communication dated 07.06.2021, the writ petition is filed. 7. The petitioner was transferred from Bikaner to Jaipur on 30.06.2015, but instead of got herself relieved, she remained absent and the reason for absent was injury in an accident, happened on 30.06.2015. The petitioner has filed a copy of FIR along with the treatment slip, medical certificate and MRI. The report for accident on 30.06.2015 was registered on 08.07.2015 [2026:RJ-JP:13983] (4 of 6) [CW-7360/2021] as FIR No. 198/2015 at PS Jai Narayan, District Bikaner under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. 8. The petitioner was served a charge sheet only on the ground that she did not join at new place, pursuant to order dated 30.06.2015. The inquiry report (Annexure 3) clearly indicate that nowhere a finding is given by the disciplinary authority whether the facts claimed by the petitioner were false and fabricated. If the petitioner has claimed that after attending an official VC meeting on 30.06.2015 when she was returning faced an accident, then it means the facts have to be verified, but instead of verification, the petitioner was only found guilty on the ground that the petitioner has joined only after issuance of charge memo under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure 3), nowhere explains the reason why the facts narrated by the petitioner were not considered by the disciplinary authority. Similarly, the appellate authority has drawn a conclusion that FIR was registered after a delay and the prescription of the Doctor indicate that petitioner did not suffer grievous injuries. The MRI was of 24.07.2015. On 06.07.2015, the petitioner has submitted an application for medical leave and as per appellate authority, the medical leave is not submitted from 30.06.2015. 9. None of the authority whether disciplinary or appellate came to a conclusion that the facts pleaded by the petitioner are false and the petitioner has fabricated the story. The appellate authority have also not considered the fact that the petitioner has registered FIR in a police station. The consideration by the authorities clearly indicate that they have not verified the facts and without verification, they have drawn a conclusion. [2026:RJ-JP:13983] (5 of 6) [CW-7360/2021] 10. A misconduct is defined as improper or wrongful behavior involving intentional with regard to Rules or duties. The disciplinary authority is entitled to initiate action when there is a dereliction of duty but same has to be considered on the basis of facts of each case. A disciplinary authority cannot presume that the defence pleaded by an employee is false and without any specific enquiry draw a conclusion. 11. This is a case of minor misconduct where the petitioner has served a charge memo under the Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, and the petitioner has claimed that she suffered injuries due to an accident. The circumstances mentioned by the petitioner on face of record appears to be convicting and reasonable, though the petitioner has not suffered a grievous injury, but ultimately, an FIR has been registered. Therefore, the decision to punish the petitioner with penalty of censure and also considering her duty as without pay from 30.06.2015 to 03.08.2015 are contrary to settled principle of administrative law. 12. It is duty of the administrative authority to balance human needs and administrative exigencies. Normally, the Court refrain from interference in the decision of disciplinary authority, but when a decision is unreasonable and non-convincing, then certainly it requires interference by the Court. Thus, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is liable for interference and required to be set aside. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure 3), 15.09.2016 (Annexure 4) and 07.06.2021 (Annexure 6) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to [2026:RJ-JP:13983] (6 of 6) [CW-7360/2021] consider leave application, in particular, Privilege Leave from 30.06.2015 to 03.08.2015, if submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is given a liberty to submit a leave application to sanction Privilege Leave from 30.06.2015 to 03.08.2015 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 14. Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/37