[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Paras Soni vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:2916]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24698/2025
Paras Soni S/o Late Shri Peera Ram Soni, Aged About 43 Years,
Address - Post Arniyali, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur
Bench in Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20358/2018 (decided on
05.12.2022).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the above submission.
3. In Raghuveer Singh's case (supra), the Court observed
and held as under:
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:31:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2916] (2 of 4) [CW-24698/2025]
"38.On bare reading of Rule 14, it is clear
that while framing the rules the rule framers were of the
opinion that the Government servant can be imposed with
the penalty of either(I) 'Censure', or (II) 'Withholding
Annual Grade Increment' or' Withholding Promotion'.
The language of the said rule clearly speaks that
rule framers were of the view that while in case of
imposing penalty of 'withholding annual grade
increment', the same itself will not adversely affect the
avenue of promotion, ift he Government servant is
otherwise found suitable. The rule framers while
incorporating the penalty of 'withholding annual grade
increment' or 'withholding promotion' with a
specific intention used the word "or" in between
'withholding annual grade increment' and 'withholding
promotion'. By using word "or" the intention of the rule
framers is very clear that in case of imposing penalty of
'withholding annual grade increment' their intention is
not to withhold the promotion avenue of the
Government servant merely on account of penalty.
Withholding annual grade increment and withholding
promotion are different kinds of penalties which may
be imposed upon Government servant. Meaning
thereby, if penalty of 'withholding annual grade
increment' is imposed on a Government servant,
that cannot be termed to be a penalty of
'withholding promotion' also.
On consideration of the provisions of the Rules this
Court is of the view that rule framers were not
having intention to withhold the promotion of a
Government servant merely on account of imposing
penalty of 'Censure' or 'Withholding the annual
grade increment'. If that would have been the intention of
the rule framers they would have mentioned in the Rule 14
as 'withholding annual grade increment' and
'withholding promotion' but they have mentioned the
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:31:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2916] (3 of 4) [CW-24698/2025]
penalty as 'withholding annual grade increment' "or"
'withholding promotion'.
39.In view of the discussions made above, this
Court safely can held that withholding promotion for
a Government servant on account of imposition of
penalty of 'Censure' or 'withholding increment' is
illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and
therefore the Circular issued by the respondent- State in
this regard disasters to be set aside.
40......
41....
42.....
43.....
44. So considering the provisions of Rules and
the law laid down in various judgments, as referred
above, this Court can safely held that the Circular dated
04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel to
the extent of depriving the Government servants from
consideration for promotion in case of criteria for promotion
being Seniority-Cum-Merit on account of penalty of
'Censure' or withholding increments, is not sustainable
and deserves to be set aside.
45. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The
order of penalty dated 30.05.2013, passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, the order
dated 27.12.2013passed by the Commissioner of Police,
Jaipur and also the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the
Joint Secretary Government of Rajasthan (Appeal) and so
also the Circular dated 04.06.2008issued by the
Department of Personnel to the extent as observed
in above paras, are quashed and set aside. The
petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits
which accrue to him as if no such order of penalty was ever
passed against him.
46. The exercise for promotion or review so as to extend
the consequential benefits to the petitioner, be completed
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:31:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2916] (4 of 4) [CW-24698/2025]
by the respondents within a period of three months from
today.
47. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the
stay application and pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of."
4. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
also disposed of on the same terms and directions as in
Raghuveer Singh (supra).
5. However, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioner.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
134-manila/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:31:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
