Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Yogendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38506) on 28 August, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:38506]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15773/2025

Yogendra Kumar S/o Birbal Ram Chhamar, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Tilak Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Colonization, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner.
3.       Additional Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner.
4.       Dy.        Commissioner,           Colonization,            Nachna,   District
         Jaisalmer.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :        Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)              :        Mr. S.R. Paliwal, G.C.



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

28/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order

dated 09.07.2025 (Annex.10) whereby the disciplinary authority

imposed the penalty of removal from service against the

petitioner.

2. The petition was listed on 22.08.2025 and on that date,

while arguing on the stay petition, counsel for the petitioner made

a submission that letter/communication/notice No.1838 dated

16.05.2025 whereby he was called upon to file his representation

and whereby it was alleged that inquiry report had been supplied

to the petitioner, was in fact never served on him and the said fact

has been incorrectly mentioned in order dated 09.07.2025.

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (2 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

3. In view of the said submission made by the counsel, a

direction to serve a copy of the petition on counsel who represents

the respondent Department was given and further, the counsel

was directed to complete his instructions as to whether the above

mentioned communication/notice was served on the petitioner or

not. That is to say, whether the enquiry report was ever served on

the petitioner and whether he was granted an opportunity to file

his representation against the said enquiry report?

4. Today, counsel for the petitioner, at the very inception,

submits that the said submission made by him on 22.08.2025 was

incorrect. He submits that it was made as per the wrong

instructions given by the petitioner to him.

5. Counsel then sought a permission to withdraw the present

petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate

Authority.

6. The Court declined the said request for the reason that

although the petitioner was aware of the alternate remedy as

available to him, chose to prefer a petition before this Court

without availing the said remedy. Further, counsel made a

complete incorrect statement before the Court on 22.08.2025 and

when the Court was not inclined to grant any interim order, a

request to withdraw the petition was made. Such practice cannot

be appreciated.

7. The Court therefore proceeded on to hear the matter on

merit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was proved

on record that the petitioner had no role in issuance of the alleged

forged pattas. The petitioner being a Lower Division Clerk (LDC)

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (3 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

just followed the instructions of his senior officials. Admittedly, the

pattas were issued by a competent authority i.e. the Tehsildar and

the petitioner could not have been penalised for any action which

was not directly attributable to him.

9. Counsel further submits that even the procedure as

prescribed under law was not followed by the disciplinary

authority. He submits that the disciplinary authority just reiterated

the findings of the enquiry officer and did not record his own

independent findings. With the said submission, counsel prayed

for quashing of the order impugned dated 09.07.2025.

10. In the alternate, counsel submits that the penalty as

imposed is totally disproportionate to the charges as levelled

against the petitioner. He submits that removal from service

clearly amounts to an economic death of the petitioner.

11. While relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court

in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Vs. Shri Ram

Yadav; 1995 (3) WLC 16 counsel submits that the punishment

ought to be proportionate to the charges as levelled. He submits

that the penalty as imposed deserves to be reduced / modified.

12. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that

evidently, the disciplinary proceedings qua the petitioner were

undertaken in terms of Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Rules of 1958'). The proceedings having been

undertaken in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 indicates that

the charges as levelled could culminate into a major penalty.

13. Counsel submits that the disciplinary authority recorded

specific findings regarding the charge as levelled against the

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (4 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

petitioner and it is not that the disciplinary authority acted in a

mechanical manner.

14. Counsel further submits that keeping into consideration the

charge levelled against the petitioner and the findings as recorded

by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, the

penalty as imposed on the petitioner is clearly proportionate to the

said charge and the order impugned does not deserve any

interference.

15. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

16. The charge/s as levelled against the petitioner was/were as

under:

"vkjksi i= ;g fd vki Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj ofj"B lgk;d dk;kZy; mik;qDr mifuos'ku ukpuk esa fnukad 05-01-1996 ls fnukad 18&03&2021 rd inLFkkfir jgsA dk;kZy; esa iV~Vk cqdsa ¼vkoaVu vkns'k cqdsa½ vkidh ns[kjs[k esa jgrh gSA bl vof/k ds nkSjku mifuos'ku rglhy ukpuk u-&1 ds pd la[;k 4 ch-MCY;w-,e- ¼,½] 5 ,e-ds-,e- kk] 6 ,e-ds-,e- kk] 9 ,e-ds-,e- kk] 13 ,e-ds-,e- kk] 14 ,e-ds-,e- kk rFkk 13 ,e-ds-,e- k ds

17 lkekU; vkoaVu ds izdj.kksa esa ftl iV~Vk cqd la[;k 939 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k] tks fd eq[; dk;kZy; ds lnj eq'kfje vuqHkkx ls fnukad 05-05-2016 dks b';w djokbZ xbZ gS] tcfd iV~Vs ¼vkoaVu vkns'k½ blls iwoZ ds o"kksZa esa gh tkjh gksus vafdr gSA blls ;g Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gSa fd mDr 17 lkekU; vkoaVu vkns'k QthZ o dwVjfpr gSA mDr QthZ lkekU; vkoaVu vkns'k] vksM ckthxj ifjokjksa gsrq vkjf{kr Hkwfe ds gS] ftuesa vkoaVu fu.kZ; fnukad 17-01-2006 vafdr dh xbZ gSA tcfd fnukad 17-01-2006 dks gqbZ vkoaVu lykgdkj lfefr dh cSBd esa dqy 54 O;fDr;ksa dks tfj;s ykWVjh lkekU; vkoaVu fd;s x;s Fks] ftuesa bu 17 vkoaVu vkns'kksa esa of.kZr O;fDr;ksa ds uke 'kkfey ugha gSA bu 17 QthZ vkoaVuksa esa ls 03 vkoaVu vkns'k ¼iV~Vs½ vkidh gLrfyfi ls tkjh fd;s x;s gS] lkFk gh 02 vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@i`f"V l{ke vf/kdkjh dh txg vkids }kjk vius

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (5 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

gLrk{kjksa ls dh xbZ gS] tks fu;ekUrxZr ugh gSA QthZ vkoaVu iV~Vksa esa vafdr jlhn la[;k o jkf'k QthZ vafdr dh xbZ gS] D;ksafd bu QthZ vkoaVu iV~Vksa esa vafdr jlhn uEcjksa dh jlhns th-,-&55 ^,^ vfHkys[k vuqlkj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke tkjh gSA bl izdkj dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj djus ,oa QthZokMk dj vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, ykHkkfFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqWpk;k x;k gS ftldk fd vki ij ;g vkjksi gSA"

17. The specific charge pertaining to the petitioner was that out

of seventeen forged pattas as issued, three were in his hand

writing and two had even been verified by him. The charge was to

the extent that the petitioner, despite not being competent to do

so, verified the said allotments in breach of rules.

18. The disciplinary authority recorded a specific finding that the

petitioner on being called upon for personal hearing, did not file

any representation and requested his written submissions/

representation filed on 20.09.2021 before the enquiry officer, to

be considered his oral submissions.

19. The disciplinary authority first reiterated the finding as

recorded by the enquiry officer as under:

"vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d ds fo:) tkjh vkjksi i= ds vuqlkj 17 lkekU; vkoaVu ds izdj.kksa esa ftl iV~Vk cqd la[;k 939 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k] tks fd eq[; dk;kZy; ds lnj eqa'kfje vuqHkkx ls fnukad 05- 05-2016 dks b';w djokbZ xbZ gS] tcfd iV~Vs ¼vkoaVu vkns'k½] izn'kZ&3 ls izn'kZ&19 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr vkoaVu vkns'k ¼iV~Vsa½ blls iwoZ ds o"kksZa esa gh tkjh gksus vafdr gSA blls ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd mDr 17 lkekU; vkoaVu vkns'k QthZ o dwVjfpr gSA mDr QthZ lkekU; vkoaVu vkns'k] vksM ckthxj ifjokjksa gsrq vkjf{kr Hkwfe ds gS] ftuesa vkoaVu fu.kZ; fnukad 17-01-2006 vafdr dh xbZ gS tcfd fnukad 17-01-2006 dks gqbZ vkoaVu lykgdkj lfefr dh cSBd esa dqy 54 O;fDr;ksa dks tfj;s

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (6 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

ykWVjh lkekU; vkoaVu fd;s x;s Fks] ftuesa bu 17 vkoaVu vkns'kksa esa of.kZr O;fDr;ksa ds uke 'kkfey ugha gSA Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk vius i{k esa ,slk dksbZ lk{;@vfHkys[k izLrqr djus esa foQy jgs gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks fd mDr d`R; esa vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj dh lafyIrrk ugha gSA vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk mDr of.kZr QthZ vkoaVu esa ls 3 iV~Vsa izkFkhZ dh gLrfyfi ls Hkjs x;s gS ftldks vius fyf[kr izR;qRrj esa vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA blls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd QthZ o dwVjfpr vkoaVu vkns'k ¼iV~Vsa½ tkjh djus dk vkjksih dkfeZd nks"kh gSA vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d }kjk 2 izdj.kksa esa vkoaVu ;Fkkor gS] ds laca/k esa lacaf/kr rglhynkj }kjk vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V izkIr djus gsrq i= tkjh ugha fd;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d }kjk i=kad 449 fnukad 07-06-2019 tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA jkT; i{k rglhynkj mifuos'ku] ukpuk&1] miLFkkid vf/kdkjh ¼foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k½ dh vksj ls izLrqr izn'kZ&20 ls Hkh bl rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk of.kZr 2 izdj.kksa esa vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V dh xbZ gS tcfd mDr iqf"V vkoaVu vf/kdkjh ds }kjk gh dh tk ldrh gSA blls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk vkoaVu vf/kdjh dh vuqifLFkfr esa vf/kdkfjrk {ks= ls ckgj tkdj mudh 'kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vkoaVu vf/kdkjh dh eksgj ij d`rs gLrk{kj djds mDr 2 vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V dh gSA mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d }kjk ftl iV~Vk cqd la[;k 939 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k] tks fd eq[; dk;kZy; ds lnj eqa'kfje vuqHkkx ls fnukad 05-05-2016 dks b';w djokbZ xbZ gS] tcfd iV~Vs ¼vkoaVu vkns'k½ blls iwoZ ds o"kksZa eas gh tkjh gksus vafdr gSA vkoaVu vkns'k cqdsa ¼iV~Vk cqdsa½ vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj dh ns[kjs[k esa jgrh FkhA blls ;g Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd mDr 17 lkekU; vkoaVu vkns'k QthZ o dwVjfpr gS rFkk vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj dh lafyIrrk gSA bu 17 QthZ vkoaVuksa esa ls 3 vkoaVu vkns'k ¼iV~Vs½ vkjksih dkfeZd dh gLrfyfi ls tkjh fd;s x;s gS] ;g Hkh izekf.kr gSA vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d }kjk 2 izdj.kksa esa vkoaVu ;Fkkor gS]

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (7 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

dk i=kad 449 fnukad 07-06-2019 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftlls Li"V gS fd vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk vkoaVu vf/kdkjh dh vuqifLFkfr esa vf/kdkfjrk {ks= ls ckgj tkdj mudh 'kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vkoaVu vf/kdkjh dh eksgj ij d`rs gLrk{kj djds mDr 2 vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V dh gSA mijksDr leLr rF;ksa dh Li"V gS fd mifuos'ku rglhy] ukpuk&1 ds pd uacj 4 ch-MCY;w-,e- ¼,½] 5 ,e-ds-,e-&kk] 6 ,e-ds-,e-&kk] 9 ,e-ds-,e-&kk] 13 ,e-ds- ,e-&kk] 14 ,e- ds-,e-&kk rFkk 13 ,e-ds-,e-&k ds 17 QthZ lkekU; vkoaVu ds izdj.kksa esa QthZ o dwVjfpr vkoaVu vkns'k ¼iV~Vk½ tkjh djus esa Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d dh lafyIrrk gSA Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] vkjksih dkfeZd }kjk vius i{k esa ,slk dksbZ lk{;@vfHkys[k izLrqr djus esa foQy jgs gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks fd mDr d`R; esa vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj dh lafyIrrk ugha gSA vr% vkjksih dkfeZd Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj] fuyfEcr ofj"B lgk;d ds fo:) vkjksi izekf.kr gSAß

20. A bare perusal of the above findings reflect that seventeen

forged pattas were issued at that point of time. The issuance of

the said pattas has not been denied by the petitioner. The only

case of the petitioner was that he filled up the said pattas in his

handwriting on the direction of the Personal Secretary to the

Commissioner at that point of time.

21. The case of the petitioner was further that as the competent

authority was on leave on the said date, he verified the allotment

and that too, on directions of the Personal Secretary of the officer

concerned. For ready reference, the reply to the said extent, as

filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer would be apt. The

same read as under:-

^^2- 17 QthZ vkoaVuksa esa ls 03 vkoaVu vkns'k viuh gLrfyfi ls tkjh fd;s] lkFk gh 02 vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V l{ke vf/kdkjh dh txg vius gLrk{kjksa ls dh xbZ%& bl lanHkZ esa fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk dksbZ vkoaVu vkns'k tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd oÆ.kr rhu iV~Vs çkFkÊ dh

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (8 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

gLrfyfi ls Hkjs x;s gSa tks fd çkFkÊ }kjk mik;qDr mifuos'ku ukpuk ds rRdkyhu futh lfpo Jh lwokyky fot; ds dgus ij vkoaVu dh ewy i=koyh ,oa vkoaVu jftLVj ls feyku dj vkoaVu vkns'k Hkjdj Jh lwokyky fot; futh lfpo dks gh ns fn;s FksA çkFkÊ }kjk mDr vkoaVu vkns'k uk rks vkoaVu vfèkdkjh ds le{k gLrk{kj gsrq çLrqr fd;s rFkk uk gh vkoaVu vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA tgk¡ rd ç'u çkFkÊ }kjk mDr 02 vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V djus dk gS rks çkFkÊ }kjk dk;kZy; esa miyCèk vkoaVu dh ewy i=koyh ,oa vkoaVu jftLVj ls feyku dj vkoaVu ;Fkkor gS dk i= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] [email protected] djus dh iqf"V ugÈ dh xÃ FkhA pqafd rRle; mik;qDr mifuos'ku ukpuk dk in fjDr Fkk rFkk vfrfjDr pktZ mik;qDr mifuos'ku chdkusj ds ikl Fkk tks rRle; eq[;ky; ij mifLFkr ugÈ FksA blfy, mDr i= ij esjs }kjk Qksj djds gLrk{kj fd;s x;s FksA bl çdkj çkFkÊ }kjk mDr vkoaVuksa dh rLnhd@iqf"V miyCèk vfHkys[kkuqlkj dh xÃ FkhA lkeku; vkoaVu dk mDr jftLVj dk;kZy; mik;qDr mifuos'ku ukpuk esa fnukad 23-04-2021 dks gqÃ vkxtuh esa ty x;k gSA ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy; esa nh gqÃ gSA vr% vkjksi fujLr QjekosaA

3- QtÊ vkoaVu iV~Vksa esa vafdr j'khn uEcjksa dh th-,-&55 , vfHkys[k vuqlkj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke tkjh gS ;Fkk j'khn la[;k o jkf'k QtÊ vafdr dh xÃ %& bl lacaèk esa fuosnu gS fd çkFkÊ }kjk mik;qDr mifuos'ku ukpuk ds rRdkyhu futh lfpo Jh lwokyky fot; ds dgus ij vkoaVu dh ewy i=koyh ,oa vkoaVu jftLVj ls feyku dj vkoaVu vkns'k Hkjdj Jh lwokyky dks gh ns fn;s FksA vkoaVu vkns'kksa esa j'khnksa dh la[;k] fMLisp uacj o fnukad vkfn dh çfof"V;ka çkFkÊ }kjk ugÈ dh xÃ FkhA vr% vkjksi fujLr QjekosaA**

22. In the specific opinion of this Court, the reply and the

submissions as made by the petitioner were themselves sufficient

to prove his involvement in the issuance of the forged pattas. It

was an admitted case of the petitioner that the particulars in three

of the said pattas were filled up in his handwriting, may be on

pretext of instructions of some higher authority. Firstly, the said

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (9 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

been done on the instructions of any higher authority, is not

proved on record. Secondly, even if it is assumed that there were

some instructions by some higher authority to do some illegal act,

the employee concerned cannot be said to be under an obligation

to comply with the said direction. The petitioner being a

government employee was under an obligation to act in

accordance with law. No government employee is under an

obligation to comply with illegal directions of any higher authority

and that too, to commit a forgery. The defence as raised by the

petitioner cannot be said to be plausible on any count.

23. Further, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he

verified the allotments which he was not competent to verify and

that no such power/authority was ever delegated to him. The only

defence raised by the petitioner is that he did so because of the

competent authority being on leave/being not available. No oral

instructions of any higher authority can entitle a LDC to sign/

verify documents when the competent authority is not available.

To exercise a power, an authority is either required to have a

statutory authority to do so or to have such entitlement cause of

some lawful delegation of power. No such power can be exercised

suo motto without any authority.

24. So far as the reiteration of the findings of the inquiry officer

by the disciplinary authority is concerned, although a ground in

the petition has been raised to the effect that the inquiry report

was not served on the petitioner and that he was not granted any

opportunity of hearing by the disciplinary authority, but it is

an admitted fact that the said ground is factually incorrect. As has

been admitted by counsel for the petitioner during the course of

[2025:RJ-JD:38506] (10 of 11) [CW-15773/2025]

hearing, vide communication No.1838 dated 16.05.2025, inquiry

report was served on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority

and he was even called upon to file his representation, if any.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any representation

whatsoever. The finding as recorded by the disciplinary authority

that the petitioner chose not to file any fresh representation and

requested to consider his earlier reply dated 28.09.2021 as filed

before the inquiry officer to be his representation, has not been

disputed. In the said event, there being no representation against

the inquiry report made to the disciplinary authority, he could not

have definitely considered any such plea.

25. This Court is of the clear view that the findings as recorded

by the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority being in

total consonance with the material available before them, does not

deserve any interference. The same does not deserve any

interference also keeping into consideration the grounds as raised

by the petitioner before this Court.

26. Coming on to the quantum of punishment, admittedly, the

charge-sheet qua the charge of issuance of seventeen forged

pattas was issued to six incumbents i.e. all the employees who

were involved in issuance of the said pattas. Admittedly, the

punishment of removal from service has been imposed against all

of them.

27. Keeping into consideration the grave charge of issuance of

seventeen forged pattas, this Court is of the clear view that the

punishment as imposed on the petitioner is totally in consonance

and in proportion to the charges as levelled against him.