Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Manish Sharma Son Of Shri Ram Gopal … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:17283) on 23 April, 2026
[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.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
[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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 03:36:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 11:19:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
