[2026:RJ-JP:24102] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3224/2003 URN: CW / 5386U / 2003 Sunil Sharma aged about 39 years son of Shri Om Prakash Sharma Resident of C-22, Thermal Colony, Sakatpura, Kota ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, PHED and Ground Water Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2026 None present on behalf of the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that: i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the memorandum dated 29th March, 2001, and order dated 5th July, 2002 and 23rd January 2003 and all consequential benefits be grated to the Petitioner. ii. If any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner is passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside. iii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:24102] (2 of 3) [CW-3224/2003] iv. Cost of writ petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.” By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the memorandum dated 29.03.2001 as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 05.07.2002 and the order passed by the reviewing authority dated 23.01.2003. Brief facts of the case are that a memorandum was issued to the petitioner while he was working as Assistant Engineer, charge against the petitioner was that he has relieved an employee who himself sought voluntary retirement without proper sanction from the higher authorities. After completion of enquiry, the charge against the petitioner was found proved and punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 05.07.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition before the State Government which was also dismissed by the State Government vide order dated 23.01.2003. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging both the orders. I have perused the record. The charge against the petitioner was found proved and thereafter, the disciplinary authority taking a lenient view awarded only penalty of censure which has been confirmed by the reviewing authority. In my considered view, no illegality has been committed by the disciplinary authority and the reviewing authority in passing of the said order. [2026:RJ-JP:24102] (3 of 3) [CW-3224/2003] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI/39