Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Satya … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:7892) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7892]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/2026
Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 52 Years, Resident Of Sharma Sadan, Ward No. 2,
Opposite Ridhi Sidhi-8, Across Railway Phatak, Sri Ganganagar,
Presently Working As Principal At Government Sr. Sec. School,
Khatka, Block Shahbad, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner
And Paden Additional State Project Director (Senior)
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (Samsa).
4. The Chief Block Education Officer, Block Shahabad,
District Baran.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Gouttam
Mr. G.S. Gouttam with
Ms. Sakshi Meena
Ms. Arati Bai Meena
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
19/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ
petition challenging two separate charge-sheets dated 25.03.2025
& 16.04.2025 issued by Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan
in the capacity of disciplinary authority under Rule 16 of Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7892] (2 of 6) [CW-2967/2026]
2. While pressing his challenge to charge-sheet, it has
been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
charge-sheet has been issued by Incompetent Authority as the
petitioner is holding the post of Principal in Senior Secondary
School, which is post of the State service and therefore, only the
State Government and not the Director can issue charge-sheet to
the petitioner.
3. In addition to above, learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that as per DOP circular dated 23.05.2002, it is
incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary
enquiry before issuing any charge-sheet and the delinquent should
also be given opportunity before issuing charge-sheet on the basis
of findings of preliminary enquiry. Learned counsel submits that
despite, clear cut guidelines given by Department of Personnel,
blindly relying upon the findings of preliminary enquiry, charge-
sheet has been served upon the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel also submits that two different charge-
sheets have been issued against the petitioner in quite malicious
manner whereas, the incidents referred in the charge-sheets
related to one and the same cause and thus, only to harass and
victimize the petitioner, the respondents have initiated two
different disciplinary enquiries, which is causing serious prejudice
and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Learned counsel also
submits that although, he has given representation in the light of
order dated 02.02.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Pawan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(SBCWP No. 1665/2024) yet, the respondents could not decide
his representation whereas, the State Government itself has
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7892] (3 of 6) [CW-2967/2026]
issued one circular dated 19.02.2024 directing all concerned for
deciding the representation in the light of aforesaid order dated
02.02.2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
6. First submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been issued by an
incompetence authority; however it has been admitted by the
learned counsel petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Principal by the order issued by Director, Secondary
Education. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has not
disputed the fact that Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner is the appointing authority of the petitioner. It is settled
proposition of law that appointing authority can issue charge-
sheet under the relevant disciplinary rules hence, the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising objection with
regard to competence of disciplinary authority is totally
misconceived and is not tenable in the eye of law.
7. Learned counsel also argued that before issuing
charge-sheet, pursuant to circular issued by DOP, the petitioner
was entitled for show cause notice on the basis of findings of
preliminary enquiry however, it has not been done. As a matter of
fact, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued while
exercising powers under rule 16 of the Rule of 1958. This Court
finds that there is no statutory rule mandating procedure of
issuing any show cause notice prior to issuance of charge-sheet,
therefore, any circular which is not in consonance of statutory
rule, is not mandatory in nature. Hence, no mistake whatsoever
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7892] (4 of 6) [CW-2967/2026]
has been done by the respondents by not issuing any prior notice
before serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted
that although, two different charge-sheets have been issued, yet
the subject matter qua charge-sheets relate to same incident
whereas, bare perusal of the charge-sheets would not support the
contention of the petitioner. This Court finds that both the charge-
sheets have been issued in respect of altogether different
incidents.
9. Learned counsel also submitted that the representation
submitted by the petitioner, in the light of order passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena
(supra), has not been decided by the respondents, which is also
a serious lapse on the part of the respondents. This Court finds
that in order dated 05.03.2024, directions have been given by
Coordinate Bench of this Court to address the representations for
redressing the grievances in respect of such service matters, for
which no specific procedure has been prescribed under the
relevant service rules. In the instant case, where the charge-
sheets have been issued under the CCA Rules, 1958, it is apparent
from perusal of the Rule 16 that at each and every stage,
opportunity of hearing shall be given to the delinquent. After
serving charge-sheet, the delinquent has got right to file reply to
the charge-sheet. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner
has not filed any reply to the charge-sheet. Filing of reply to the
charge-sheet is quite significant for the reason that after receiving
reply to the charge-sheet, the disciplinary authority considers the
reply and takes a decision either to proceed further or to drop the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7892] (5 of 6) [CW-2967/2026]
charge-sheet at that stage. Therefore, filing of the present writ
petition challenging the charge-sheet at this stage, is totally
premature and it has also been held by this Court that charge-
sheet cannot be challenged by delinquent without filing reply to
the charge-sheet.
10. 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.
11. 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 aforesaid 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(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7892] (6 of 6) [CW-2967/2026]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.”
12. In view of above, there is no scope for interference in
the instant case and the same is hereby, dismissed.
13. It is made clear that no opinion on merits has been
expressed while deciding the present writ petition and the
observation is confined to challenge the validity and legality of the
charge-sheet at this stage and such observation/comments shall
not prejudice the defence of the petitioner during enquiry and the
petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds with regard to
his defence while submitting reply to the charge-sheet.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
NEERU/16
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:19 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:46:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
