JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner joined service as Vaidh in Ayurved Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 14.9.1964. He was pointed as Senior Physician in the year 1975 and then as District Ayurved Officer in the 1980. He was further promoted as Deputy Director, Ayurved and presently he is holding the post of Deputy Director, Ayurved. Petitioner claimed that he is eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Director but on account of disciplinary enquiry which has been initiated against him by memorandum No. P-1/210/Karmik/Ka-3(92) dated 6.4.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, and which is under challenge in this writ petition, his promotion is being adversely affected. 2. In the year 1987-88, petitioner was posted as District Ayurved Officer, Dungarpur. During his tenure as District Ayurved Officer, Dungarpur, four candidates, namely, Surendra Singh, Pooranmal, Arjunlal and Jayesh Kumar were appointed as Class IV employee against the quota of Physically Handicapped. Order dated 28.3.1988 by which the petitioner had appointed these four persons as class IV persons against the quota of physically handicapped persons, is the root cause of the charges levelled against the petitioner by memorandum dated 6.4.1993. 3. Petitioner has stated that as early as on 30th July, 1987 and 26.10.1987, Government had issued instructions to all the appointing authorities in the State of Rajasthan to make recruitment against the quota of physically handicapped persons hi accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan (Employment of Physically Handicapped) Rules, 1976. Such appointments were to be made for sub-ordinate, ministerial and class IV service posts by 31st March, 1988. By circular dated 11.12.1987, the Government issued a further mandate to the competent authorities to positively fill the 3 percent quota of Physically Handicapped persons on or before 31st March, 1988. At the same time, the Government had waived the requirement of non-availability certificates for filling the quota of Physically Handicapped persons. Circular No. F 13(15)/Admn./Sa.Pra./III dated 27.7.1987 was issued by the Special Secretary, General Administration Department, conveying relaxation in the requirement of Non-availability Certificates up to 31.3.1988. This was done in continuance of earlier circulars dated 11.2.1987 and 17.4.1987 on the same subject. A separate circular No. F 9(4) Sh.Niyo./86/dated 17.4.1987 was also issued by the Government granting exemption from requirement of calling names from the Employment Exchange for the purpose of recruitment of Physically Handicapped persons. This was done in continuance of earlier circulars dated 11.2.1987 and 17.4.1987 on the same subject. A separate circular No. F 9(4) Sh.Niyo./86/dated 17.4.1987 was also issued by the Government granting exemption from requirement of calling names from the Employment Exchange for the purpose of recruitment of Physically Handicapped persons. In accordance with these directions, the District Ayurved Officers of various districts including Udaipur, Chittorgarh and Dungarpur had made appointments of Physically Handicapped persons against the posts of Class IV servant. In regard to his own district, namely, the district of Dungarpur, applications were received from various Physically Handicapped persons and a Committee consisting of Shri Ram Niwas Sharma (respondent No. 4) who was at the relevant time Deputy Ayurved Officer, and the petitioner, considered the applications and while taking note of the Government directives to fill in the quota of Physically Handicapped persons (3 percent) decided to make appointment against the four vacant posts of Physically Handicapped persons in the cadre of Class IV employees. According to the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, Shri Ram Niwas Joshi had given him positive instructions to issue order of appointment immediately. Acting on the directions given by the Regional Deputy Director, the petitioner issued the order dated 28.3.1988 for appointment of four persons Physically Handicapped. 4. As already mentioned here in above, the order passed by the petitioner on 28.3.1988 for appointment of four Physically Handicapped persons is the basis of charge- sheet issued to the petitioner under r. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short,`the Rules'). In the charge-sheet dated 6.4.1993 it has been alleged that the Social Welfare Department had issued circular dated 23.2.1987 for filling the vacant posts of Physically Handicapped persons. On the basis of this circular of the Social Welfare Department, the Collector, Dungarpur had by his DO letter dated 11.3.1987 instructed the petitioner to indicate the date of interview to the Employment Exchange but the petitioner did not take any steps. The sanction given by the Collector for making recruitment of Physically Handicapped persons was limited for a period of 2 months but the petitioner ignored this sanction and in collusion with Shri R.N. Joshi, the then Regional Deputy Director, appointed four persons by his order dated 28.3.1988. The sanction given by the Collector for making recruitment of Physically Handicapped persons was limited for a period of 2 months but the petitioner ignored this sanction and in collusion with Shri R.N. Joshi, the then Regional Deputy Director, appointed four persons by his order dated 28.3.1988. Three of these persons were not residents of Dungarpur and they managed their transfer outside District of Dungarpur. It has been alleged that three persons were present at the time of meeting of the Committee and this shows that without following the procedure prescribed in various Government circulars, the petitioner had appointed four persons. The Government had treated this action of the petitioner to be an act of grave misconduct. 5. In assailing the chargellket issued to the petitioner, shri G.G. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there has been abnormal delay in issue of charge-sheet to the petitioner. His submission is that the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner after a lapse of over 5 years and this abnormal delay in issue of charge-sheet to the petitioner is by itself sufficient for quashing of the charge-sheet. Second submission of Shri Sharma is that the charge levelled against the petitioner is wholly baseless. He pointed out that there was no necessity of getting NOC/NAC from the Collector in view of different circulars issued by the State Government and what the petitioner had done was to consider the claims of those persons who were Physically Handicapped and who had made applications for being appointed against the quota reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. According to learned counsel, this action of the petitioner cannot be treated as violative of any provisions of law or instructions issued by the Government and, therefore, there is no justification in charging the petitioner with the allegation of having violated the instructions issued by the Collector. Shri Sharma further argued that allegation of collusion with the Regional Deputy Director is wholly unfounded because there is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of making appointment against the quota of Physically Handicapped persons with an oblique motive. 6. Shri Sharma further argued that allegation of collusion with the Regional Deputy Director is wholly unfounded because there is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of making appointment against the quota of Physically Handicapped persons with an oblique motive. 6. Although no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3, a look at the reply filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 shows that the respondents have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition by alleging that the action of the respondents in issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner is an administrative action and such administrative action is beyond pale of challenge in court of law. Another objection raised by the respondents is on the anvil of availability of alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. According to the respondents, when a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner this Court must not entertain a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On merits, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have pleaded that the petitioner was bound to follow the guide-lines issued by the Government which envisage that the appointing authority will first seek Non-availability Certificate from the Collector of the District concerned and call for the names from the Employment Exchange before making appointment on any post, may be that such appointment was required to be made against the quota of Physically Handicapped persons. Further plea of the respondents No. 1 to 3 is that in respect of appointments made by the petitioner in March, 1988, a complaint had been received by the Superintendent after Police, State Investigation Bureau some time in the year 1991. This complaint was investigated by the State Investigation Bureau and then a decision was taken to serve a charge-sheet to the petitioner under r. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Yet another assertion of the respondents is that it took some time for the Government to take a final decision on the question of serving charge-sheet to the petitioner and mere delay in serving a charge-sheet cannot be a ground for quashing the same by the Court. Looking to nature of controversy involved, I deem it proper to first dispose of the two preliminary objections enumerated in the reply filed by the respondents. 7. Looking to nature of controversy involved, I deem it proper to first dispose of the two preliminary objections enumerated in the reply filed by the respondents. 7. Insofar as the second preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, I must observe that the objection is perverse in character. Apparently, the objection has been raised without any realisation of the fact, that the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur which has been constituted under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the matters involving imposition of punishinent on the Government servants as a result of disciplinary action. Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 defines the term "service matters". This definition is reproduced below for the purpose of ready reference : "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires,- xx x xxxx xxxxxxx x x x x (f) "Service Matter" means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant:- (i) Seniority; (ii) promotion; Confirmation; (iv) Fixation of pay; (v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the dis-advantage of a Government Servant, otherwise than as a penalty; (vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; (vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as a penalty; (viii) Any other matter notified by the Government." 8. A cursory glance on the above quoted term 'service matters' clearly show that the definition, comprehends within itself various matters but at the same time excludes all those matters which can appropriately be termed as 'Punishment'. Even in the matter of reversion the Tribunal can entertain an appeal where reversion is otherwise than by way of penalty. When jurisdiction of the Tribunal is specifically excluded in respect of disciplinary matters it is not possible to hold that this Court should not entertain the writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 4 of the Act of 1976. When jurisdiction of the Tribunal is specifically excluded in respect of disciplinary matters it is not possible to hold that this Court should not entertain the writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 4 of the Act of 1976. It is unfortunate that such an objection should be raised by none else than Department of Personnel of the Government of Rajasthan which is presumed to be the department controlling various establishment matters of the different cadres in the State of Rajasthan. 9. Second preliminary objection is equally untenable. It is too late in the day to argue that a charge-sheet issued on a Government Servant cannot be made subject matter of judicial review merely because it is an administrative act. Jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in India can be excluded by statutory enactment but so far as the High Court is concerned, its jurisdiction can be excluded only by a Constitutional amendment. Wide reach of jurisdiction of the High Court has been aptly recognised in M/s. Dwarkanath v. Income tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 ) and in host of other decisions. In Manoj Kumar Bansal v. State of Raj. and anr., 1993 (2) WLC 751 , I have dealt with a similar preliminary objection and held that except on the basis of Parliamentaiy enactments framed under Arts. 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution, even the Legislature does not have any jurisdiction to curtail or abridge the wide magnitude of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Aft. 226 of the Constitution. I wish to reiterate that all administrative actions are within the reach of the powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Art. 226. Of course, in what case the Court will exercise jurisdiction and grant or refuse relief to an aggrieved person will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, I have no hesitation in over-ruling the first preliminary objection also. 10. Coming to merits of the case, I would first indicate the parameters within which the Court will ordinarily interfere and quash disciplinary proceedings before their conclusion at the level of the department. This Court will quash a charge-sheet where it finds that the authority issuing the charge-sheet is not competent authority to issue the charge-sheet. 10. Coming to merits of the case, I would first indicate the parameters within which the Court will ordinarily interfere and quash disciplinary proceedings before their conclusion at the level of the department. This Court will quash a charge-sheet where it finds that the authority issuing the charge-sheet is not competent authority to issue the charge-sheet. It will also interfere where it is found that there has been abnormal delay in service of charge-sheet and such delay has caused prejudice to the delinquent employees. Yet another ground for interference at a stage prior to conclusion of departmental enquiry will be where it is found that charges levelled against the delinquent employee are wholly baseless or where the action is actuated by malice in fact. 11. In so far as this ease,is concerned, a recapitulation of the allegations levelled against the petitioner show that the petitioner has been charged with the allegation of misconduct on the ground that he had violated the directions issued by the District Magistrate, and that he had issued appointment orders in favour of Physically Handicapped persons, even though the tenure of non- availability certificate issued by the Collector had come to an end long back. Another allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he had entered into a conspiracy with Shri R.N.Joshi, the Regional Depury Director for the purpose of making appointment of Physically Handicapped persons in Class IV cadre. It is necessary to mention at this stage itself that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had appointed any General category candidate against the post reserved for Physically Handicapped. It is not in dispute that all the four persons who were appointed by the petitioner on 28.3.1988, are Physically Handicapped persons and all of them could legitimately be appointed as Physically Handicapped persons in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1976. The Government of Rajasthan had virtually launched a campaign for filling the back-log of vacancies reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. It is quite reasonable to presume that the Government was anxious to carry out its social obligation towards the weaker section of the society, namely, the persons who are Physically Handicapped. The Government of Rajasthan had virtually launched a campaign for filling the back-log of vacancies reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. It is quite reasonable to presume that the Government was anxious to carry out its social obligation towards the weaker section of the society, namely, the persons who are Physically Handicapped. The Government wanted to achieve the object of socialism by fulfilling its duties in Part IV and particularly tinder Art. 41 of the Constitution and had issued more than one circulars directing the competent officers in respect of achieving the target of filling of posts reserved for Physically Handicapped persons on or before 31.3.1988. The very fixation of target date is indicative of the anxiety of the Government to complete the task of tilling up the quota of Physically Handicapped persons. Circular Annex. 2, Annex. 3 and Annex. The very fixation of target date is indicative of the anxiety of the Government to complete the task of tilling up the quota of Physically Handicapped persons. Circular Annex. 2, Annex. 3 and Annex. 4 are re- produced below in order to highlight the anxiety shown by the Government : fodykaxks ds fu;kstu dh lwpuk Hkstus ds funsZ'k ifji= dzekad ,Q&5 ( 73 ) dkfeZd@d&2@84 ( 55@87 ) fnukad 11-12-87 bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 30-7-87 ( ys[kkfoK vxLr 87 i`"V 469 ) ,oa 26-10-87 ( ys[kkfoK uoEcj] 87 i`"B 559 ) dh vksj /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k tkdj iqu% Lej.k djk;k tkrk gS fd jktLFkku ,Eiyk;esUV vkQ fQthdy gs.MhdsIM :Yl] 1976 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj v/khuLFk] ea=kyf;d ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh lsokvksa ds inksa ij fodykaxksa ds lh/kh HkrhZ ds inksa ij vkjf{kr 3 izfr'kr dksVs dh iwfrZ fnukad 31-3-88 rd vko';d :i ls iw.kZ dj yh tk;sA orZeku fodykaxksa ds fu;kstu gsrq djus dk y{; fu/kkZfjr gSA fodykaxks ds fu;kstu dh lwpuk mijksDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ( 4 ) ds vuqlj.k esa izR;sd o"kZ dh 31 ekpZ] dks dkfeZd ( d&5 ) foHkkx dks izsf"kr djuk okaNuh; gS lkFk gh ;g Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ;g lwpuk funsZ'k] fu;kstu foHkkx dks Hkh Hksth tkosA gky gh esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd fodykaxksa ds fu;kstu dh =Sekfld lwpuk dze'k% ekg] twu] flrEcj ,oa fnlEcj dh lekfIr ij fujUrj funs'kd] fu;kstu foHkkx] t;iqj dks izsf"kr dh tkosA blds vfrfjDr leLr fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ,oa foHkkxk/;{kksa }kjk fjfDr;ksa dks foKkfir djus vFkok fu;kstu funs'kky; ;k vk;ksx dks izsf"kr djrs le; vFkZuk esa ;g izek.k&i= Hkh vafdr fd;k tkos fd fu;ekUrxZr fodykaxksa ds fufer fofufnZ"V vkj{k.k dh iwfrZ gsrq iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS ,oa fdlh izdkj dk cSd ykWx ugha gSA Izfrfyfi i=kad i0 13 ( 15 ) lkiz@ III @83] fnukad 27-7-87 vksj ls fof'k"B 'kklu lfpo] lkekU; iz'kklu ( xzqi&3 ) foHkkx] t;iqj okLrs leLr foHkkx/;{kA ifji= fo"k;& fodykax O;fDr;ksa dks fu;qfDr nsus ds fy, fjDr inksa dks Hkjus gsrq vuqiyC/krk izek.k i= izkIr djus dh izFkk ls eqDr djus ckcrA bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 11-2-87 rFkk 17-4-87 ds dze esa fodykax O;fDr;ksa ds vkjf+{kr inksa dks Hkjus ds fy, vuqiyC/krk izek.k i= izkIr djus ds vkns'k esa NwV dh vof/k fnukad 31-3-88 rd c<+kbZ vifBrA g0 ( ,l0ih0 vxzoky ) fof'k"B 'kklu lfpo dk;kZy; funs'kd] vk;qosZn foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqj dzekad % izfr@4@ifj@87@34332 fnukad 5-10-87 leLr dk;kZy; v/;{k] vk;qosZn foHkkx] jktLFkku dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq nh tkrh gSA g0 funs'kd fodykaxksa dk uke fu;kstu dk;kZy; ls ekaxuk vko';d ughaA ifji= dzekad ,i&9 ( 4 ) Jfu@86 fnukad 17-4-87 fodykax O;fDr;ksa dks jkstxkj nsus gsrq fu;kstu dk;kZy;ksa }kjk lEizs"k.k dh izfdz;k esa f'kfFkyrk nsus ds lEcU/k esa ekeyk jkT; ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu FkkA bl ekeys esa lgkuwHkwfriwoZd fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd fodykax O;fDr;ksa dk fu;kstu djus gsrq vc fu;kstu dk;kZy;ksa ls uke eaxkus dh vko'pdrk ugha jgsxhA fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh mDr Js.kh ds vk'kkfFkZ;ksa dh lh/kh fu;qfDr dj ldsaxs] fdUrq ,sls vk'kkfFkZ;ksa dks viuk iath;u jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa djokuk vko';d gksxk ,oa fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh fjfDr;ksa dks fu;kstu dk;kZy;ksa dks vf/klwfpr djsaxsA " 12. Not only that the Government was anxious to see that all the appointing authorities take positive measures for fulfilling the target of appointment of Physically Handicapped persons on or before 31.3.1988, it had taken further measures to remove all obstacles in making of appointment of Physically Handicapped persons. Precisely for this reason, the Government had waived the requirement of Non-availability Certificate and precisely for this reason it waived the requirement of calling the names from the Employment Exchange. If this was the anxiety shown by the Government on its part, there was ample justification for the petitioner to have taken prompt steps for appointment of Physically Handicapped persons. What the petitioner had done was to have considered the applications submitted by the Physically Handicapped persons. Those who have been appointed are Physically Handicapped persons and the petitioner was not only one person who had made appointments by adopting that procedure but the Deputy Director of the Department in Districts of Udaipur and Chittorgarh have adopted the same procedure. In view of anxiety shown by the Government to fill in the posts reserved for Physically Handicapped persons and to clear the backlog of vacancies meant for reserved quota of Physically Handicapped persons, the action taken by the petitioner cannot at all be termed as malicious, arbitrary or un-reasonable. It is strange that on one hand the Government had waived the requirement of Non-availability Certificate and at the same time it has charge-sheeted the petitioner by alleging that he has not followed the instructions issued by the Collector, Dungarpur. It appears to me that the District Magistrate, Dungarpur had made it a prestige issue that the petitioner should be taught a lesson for having ignored his directions and completely forget the fact that it is the Government which is superior to the Collector and it was the Government which had issued instructions on 17.4.1987 and 11.12.1987, waiving the requirement of Non-availability Certificate and requirement of calling names from the Employment Exchange. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot with any element of justification be charged with allegation of having committed violation of the instructions issued by the Government much less the instructions issued by the District Magistrate, Dungaipur by his letter dated 11.3.1987. 13. The allegation of collusion between the petitioner and Shri R.N. Joshi, the then Regional Deputy Director is without any foundation whatsoever. 13. The allegation of collusion between the petitioner and Shri R.N. Joshi, the then Regional Deputy Director is without any foundation whatsoever. Neither in the charge- sheet nor in the statement of allegations it has been shown that any Physically Handicapped person had levelled an allegation of demand of bribe by the petitioner. It has also not been alleged that the four persons appointed under the instructions of Regional Deputy Director are related to the petitioner directly or indirectly. It has not been shown that the Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Dungarpur had demanded or accepted bribe from any of the candidates. Even in the reply of respondents, it has not been shown that there existed any material on the basis of which the respondents could with some semblance of justification allege that the petitioner had entered into collusion with the respondent No. 4. Mere making of allegation of collusion is by itself not sufficient. There has to be some basis for allegation before the Government could proceed against the petitioner. In this case it has not been shown that an Physically Handicapped person has lodged a complaint against the petitioner and Shri R.N. Joshi in respect of appointments made on the post of class IV servant vide order dated 28.3.88. Thus the second charge levelled against the petitioner is also liable to be quashed. 14. Clearly by initiating enquiry against the petitioner after a lapse of 5 years, the respondent No. 1 has done nothing else than harassing him. There could be some justification for proceeding against the petitioner even after a lapse of 5 years if there was some basis 'for the allegation involving corruption or bribe but that element is totally missing in the present case. 15. Thus I have no hesitation in concluding that the charge-sheet is totally baseless and warrants interference by this Court at this stage. Failure of this Court to interfere and give proper relief to the petitioner would definitely result in irreparable injury to him. It cannot be ignored that each public servant is basically a careerist. An honest Government servant hopes for nothing else than due promotion and fixation of his pay in the revised pay scales. Failure of this Court to interfere and give proper relief to the petitioner would definitely result in irreparable injury to him. It cannot be ignored that each public servant is basically a careerist. An honest Government servant hopes for nothing else than due promotion and fixation of his pay in the revised pay scales. If there is legitimate ground for denying promotion, the Government is certainly entitled to do so because that is in public interest but if there is no basis for putting an obstacle for promotion of a person perverse enquiries like the one which is under challenge in this writ petition cannot be allowed to proceed. Morale of public service lies not only in taking prompt action against the defaulting Government servant but also lies in the fact that the Government servant are not put to un-necessary harassment by way of departmental enquiry. 16. Before concluding I would like to make reference to letter dated 28.7.1993 written by the Director, Ayurved, Ajmer. This document has been placed on record as Annex. 14. This letter unmistakably shows that in the opinion of the Director, Ayurved Department, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was wholly baseless. The Government has not thought it proper to pay heed to the observations made by the Director. May be that it was not bound by the observations made by the Director, Ayurved but total side- lining of the observations made by the Director, Ayurved and that too without justification cannot at all be appreciated. Even after issue of notice by this Court. the respondent has not thought it proper to take a decision in the matter after considering reply filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that by keeping the sword of departmental enquiry hanging over the petitioner, a clear attempt has been made to frustrate his fair consideration to promotion on the higher post. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition to allowed. The charge-sheet dated 6.4.1993 served upon the petitioner for enquiry against him under R. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, is quashed. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits including consideration for promotion on the higher posts. 18. Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******