[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hitesh Bhadu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15259) on 2 April, 2026

Author: Anand Sharma

Bench: Anand Sharma

[2026:RJ-JD:15259]

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                     S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6562/2026
PETITIONER:
Hitesh Bhadu S/o Shri Pabu Ram, Aged about 26 years, Resident of
Devanion Ki Dhani, Shivkar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.


                                          Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1.       State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Elementary
         Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3.       The District Education Officer, Barmer, Rajasthan.
4.       The Zila Parishad Barmer, through its Chief Executive
         Officer, Barmer, Rajasthan.




For Petitioner                 :     Mr. Manish Patel Advocate.
For Respondents                :     Mr. Digvijay Sodha Advocate.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

02/04/2026

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed

legality and validity of order dated 01.01.2025 issued by the District

Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Barmer,

whereby, treating the appointment of the petitioner as void ab initio,

services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from

13.10.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted

that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated

by the Director, Elementary Education vide advertisement dated

31.12.2021 and after undergoing entire selection process under the

rules, appointment was given to the petitioner on 28.10.2022.



                           (Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:30:20 PM)

 [2026:RJ-JD:15259]                    (2 of 6)                         [CW-6562/2026]


Learned     counsel   submits      that      bare      perusal    of   order   dated

01.01.2025 would reveal that the order is stigmatic in nature and

services of the petitioner have been terminated without following

due procedure of law. Even no show cause notice has been issued by

the respondents prior to passing of order dated 01.01.2025. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that when an employee

has been appointed after following the procedure contemplated

under the rules, his/her services cannot be terminated in quite

arbitrary manner and even if, any misconduct is alleged against the

employee, he/she has every right to defend himself/herself in

accordance with the procedure contemplated under the provisions of

the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,

1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958'). In the

instant case, since no show cause notice was issued by the

respondents, therefore, impugned order is ex-facie illegal and the

same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

even otherwise, appointing authority of the petitioner is District

Establishment Committee, Barmer, yet order impugned has been

passed by the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary

Education, Barmer, who is not competent to pass any order for

terminating services of the petitioner. In support of his submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision

of this Court in the case of Sharvan Choudhary vs. State of

Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4298/2025

decided on 08.05.2025).

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:30:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15259] (3 of 6) [CW-6562/2026]

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents with a

condition that in case, any qualification document or any certificate

on the basis of which the petitioner has sought appointment, is

found to be incorrect or forged, or not issued in accordance with law,

then the respondents have got right to cancel the appointment. In

the instant case, the petitioner submitted application in the category

of Outstanding Sportsperson on the basis of one certificate issued by

Madhya Pradesh Taekwondo Association. However, on enquiry, the

aforesaid certificate was found to be forged. Under these

circumstances, where the petitioner was appointed on the basis of

forged certificate, the respondents have not committed any mistake

in terminating services of the petitioner vide order dated

01.01.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted

that the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the impugned order

dated 01.01.2025 has been passed by an incompetent authority, is

incorrect. The petitioner was holding the post of Teacher Grade-III,

Level-I whose appointing authority under the rules is District

Education Officer. Therefore, impugned order cannot be said to have

been passed by an incompetent authority.

5. In the alternative, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that even if the impugned order is held to have been

passed without following the due procedure contemplated under the

Rules of 1958 or by an incompetent authority, the respondents may

be granted opportunity to follow the due procedure contemplated

under the Rules of 1958 and pass a fresh order in accordance with

the Rules after conducting enquiry by the competent authority.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:30:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15259] (4 of 6) [CW-6562/2026]

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

7. It is undisputed fact that after following the due

procedure of selection, the petitioner was appointed vide order

dated 28.10.2022 on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-I. Such

appointment was apparently substantive in nature. It is settled

proposition of law that the respondent-department, in case the

veracity and validity of the qualification certificate is under dispute,

can certainly pass order for removing any employee from service,

yet said power given under the rules is neither unfettered, nor

unbridled, rather can be exercised after following due process of law.

Bare perusal of order dated 01.01.2025 would reveal that the order

of termination is not simplicitor in nature and since, serious

allegations have been levelled therein against the petitioner, it is

apparently stigmatic. Impugned order is also founded upon alleged

misconduct committed by the petitioner.

8. It is also settled that howsoever serious is the misconduct

by any employee, any action can be taken against him/her only after

following the due procedure contemplated under the Rules. In the

instant case, since the petitioner was a substantive employee of the

respondent-Education Department, any misconduct committed by

him can be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the

Rules of 1958, which provide for a detailed disciplinary enquiry

under Rule 16 before taking any action of removing any employee

from service.

9. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents

that prior to issuance of order dated 01.01.2025, neither any notice

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:30:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15259] (5 of 6) [CW-6562/2026]

was issued to the petitioner, nor was he afforded any opportunity of

hearing by conducting any kind of enquiry whatsoever. Under similar

circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Sharvan Choudhary (supra) has observed as under:

"12. In the present case, no charge-sheet/disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner before terminating him from the services. The services of the petitioner has been terminated only on the basis of a show cause notice issued and dissatisfying from the reply filed by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the respondents is not correct and without holding any enquiry, the respondents have reached to the conclusion that the appointment obtained by the petitioner is on the strength of forged documents. The matter was required to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958 by issuing a proper charge-sheet and holding a proper enquiry in the matter. Merely, getting the investigation done unilaterally by the respondents and finding the fact that certain documents have been fraudulently produced by the petitioner while getting the employment is not the correct approach adopted by the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner.

13. It is further noted that in the identical circumstances, some of the candidates were issued show cause notices, against which, they preferred writ petitions and the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.4.2025 has passed an order to constitute the Committee to investigate the matter and at the same time, the services of petitioners of those writ petitions were protected by passing an interim order, whereas in the present case, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Therefore, the petitioner stands discriminated vis- a-vis those candidates whose services have been continued during the pendency of the enquiry.

14. It is also a fact that except the infirmity shown in the show cause notice, there is no other disqualification pointed out by the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner and therefore, the same are required to be inquired into by holding a proper disciplinary enquiry as per the Rules.

15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the present case, the order of termination in service law is like acapital punishment and, therefore, the same should be passed after holding a proper enquiry to prevent innocent person being punished.

16. In view of the discussions made above, the termination order dated 15.01.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 15.01.2025 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set-aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the services forthwith."

10. Having considered the material on record and

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:30:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15259] (6 of 6) [CW-6562/2026]

the considered opinion that order dated 01.01.2025 issued by the

District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education,

Barmer is arbitrary and illegal, as the same has been issued against

the provisions of the Rules of 1958. Accordingly, order dated

01.01.2025 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are

directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service while maintaining

continuity in service. The petitioner shall also be entitled to notional

benefits, if any permissible under the rules, however, he shall not be