Hawa Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1339 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hawa Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:5620]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057/2026

Hawa Singh S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Vpo
Kasimpura, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through        The   Secretary,
         Colonization Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner Raj.
3.       Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration),
         Jaisalmer Raj.
4.       Tehsildar, Colonization, Mohangarh-Ii, Jaisalmer Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. A.R. Godara.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Haminder Puri Goswami for
                                   Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, G.C.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

30/01/2026

1. Heard on final disposal at admission stage with the consent

of both the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order

of dismissal dated 29.09.2025 (Annex.-14), whereby the

petitioner's services were put to an end.

3. The background of the facts discloses that the petitioner was

given a charge-sheet on the allegations that the present

petitioner allegedly mutated certain revenue record on the

basis of certain Court decree without following the procedure

particularly without obtaining approval from the Revenue

Inspector. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:24:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5620] (2 of 4) [CW-1057/2026]

submitted an explanation to the Disciplinary Authority. The

Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation

given by the petitioner. As such, he proceeded with the

continuation of disciplinary proceedings by appointing the

Inquiry Officer. Unfortunately, the Inquiry Officer instead of

following the procedure of conducting a fair inquiry by

allowing the Department to place evidence on record,

proceeded to obtain replies from both the parties and on the

basis of the replies, findings have been submitted by the

Inquiry Officer holding that the allegations have been proved

and the Disciplinary Authority acting upon the Inquiry

Report, sought an explanation from the petitioner and not

being satisfied with the explanation, the impugned order of

dismissal has been passed.

4. The entire procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer is

unknown to law and contrary to the established principles of

inquiry. When there is a major penalty, the Rules require that

the proper inquiry has to be conducted unlike an inquiry

contemplated for a minor penalty. The inquiry includes

appointment of an Inquiry Officer if the Disciplinary Authority

does not intend to conduct the inquiry itself. In the present

case, the Inquiry Officer has been appointed and the Inquiry

Officer ought to have allowed the Department to produce its

own evidence and should have given an opportunity to the

delinquent officer ('the present petitioner') to test such an

evidence and he shall also be allowed to produce defence

evidence and, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer is required to

give findings on charges and submit a report to the

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:24:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5620] (3 of 4) [CW-1057/2026]

Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority also

required to give his own independent findings on the

charges, which are proved according to the Inquiry Officer by

serving the Inquiry Report and calling for an explanation to

the delinquent officer.

5. Both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Inquiry Officer

have done the entire exercise not in accordance with the

procedure, therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the

present writ petition.

6. As a result, the present writ petition is allowed. The

impugned report dated 18.07.2025 (Annex.-12) and

consequential dismissal order dated 29.09.2025 (Annex.-14),

are set aside. The Inquiry Officer is directed to conduct a

fresh inquiry in the manner provided under the Rules i.e. by

allowing the Department to produce its own evidence to

prove the charges and to allow the delinquent officer to

cross-examine such witnesses, which the Department has

produced and shall also be given liberty to the delinquent

officer to adduce his own evidence and such evidence can

also be tested by cross-examination by the Department and,

thereafter, the Inquiry Officer is required to submit a report

and basing on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority is

required to furnish the Inquiry Report and call for the

explanation from the delinquent officer. After receiving the

explanation, the Disciplinary Authority is required to give its

own findings, on the charges, which the Inquiry Officer found

to be proved and, thereafter, pass a necessary order.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:24:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5620] (4 of 4) [CW-1057/2026]

7. The said exercise shall be done within a period of six months

from the date of this order.

8. It is not required to mention that since the dismissal order is

set aside, the position, which, the petitioner was occupying

prior to the dismissal order, stands restored, meaning

thereby, his suspension will continue.

9. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 168-PKS/-

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:24:07 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)