If Proceedings Have To Be Initiated Co-Jointly Against Two Delinquents Of Different Departments, Then Chief Secretary Or Other Authority Of Administrative Reforms Dept. Can Pass Order: Rajasthan HC
The Petitioner had called into question the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel on the grounds of jurisdiction & competence.

The Rajasthan High Court clarified that in cases where proceedings have to be initiated co-jointly against two delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are Officers of different departments, then it is the Chief Secretary or other competent authority of the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department alone, who can pass an order under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958.
The Petitioner had called into question the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel on the grounds of jurisdiction and competence.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta said, “...in the case of the petitioner whose parent department is Finance Department, the disciplinary action (if any) can be taken by the Secretary of the Finance Department and not by the Department of Personnel. Furthermore, since the other employee involved in the alleged irregularities namely, Amarjeet Singh hails from the State services and his parent department is Department of Personnel, it is the Secretary of the Department of Personnel, who is empowered to initiate proceedings against him.”
Advocate JS Bhaleria represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kuldeep Singh Solanki represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner, in this case, was appointed as Accounts Officer in the Public Works Department, Churu by an order issued by the the Joint Secretary, Finance. The appointing authority, in this case, was the Secretary, Finance Department. A common charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and another employee working as a Devolpment Officer in the Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh. The basic plank of challenge was that since the Department of Personnel was neither the petitioner’s appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority, it couldn’t initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
Reasoning
The Bench placed reliance upon Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958, which provides that when two or more Government employees are involved in any delinquency or misconduct, the State Government or any other competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants, may by an order direct that disciplinary action against all of them be taken by way of common proceedings. “Since, two persons from different departments are being conjointly proceeded and hence Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958, can be pressed into service, without any doubt and legal hurdle”, it said.
Reference was made to Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Rules of Business which deals with disposal of business relating to items common to all departments. It is stated therein that all decisions relating to services, including disciplinary matters, suspension and institution of disciplinary proceedings are required to be undertaken by the Deputy Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department.
“In the cases like the one in hand, when two delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are officers or Secretaries of different departments, then, it is the Chief Secretary or other competent authority of the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department alone, who can pass an order under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958”, it clarified.
The Bench further explained that in such cases, issuance of a simple charge sheet in the manner done is not sufficient. The competent authority in the Office of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination can either undertake the proceedings itself or can pass an order specifying the authority which shall function as the disciplinary authority for the common proceedings; who shall be the disciplinary authority competent to impose penalty specified in Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 and also mention whether the procedure prescribed in Rules 16 and 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is required to be followed or not in the proceedings to be undertaken.
“It is only after such an order being passed, an authority appointed as disciplinary authority can proceed in the matter and issue a combined charge-sheet to all such delinquents who are involved in one case or common and interlaced irregularities, against whom the State proposes to take common or joint proceedings”, it added.
Thus, allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned charge sheet, the Bench ordered, “...either the petitioner’s disciplinary authority in the Finance Department shall be free to recommend disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law (if not already done) or the Chief Secretary or the Secretary in-charge of the Administrative Reforms and Co-ordination Department shall suo-motu pass an order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958, appointing common disciplinary authority (if so desired) and issue other directions…”
Cause Title: Tulcha Ram v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:1668)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate JS Bhaleria
Respondents: Advocates Kuldeep Singh Solanki, Jai Pareek, AAG IR Choudhary, Advocates Mahaveer Prasad Pareek, Meenal Singhvi, AAG Rajesh Panwar