ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 issued by the respondents under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’), together with all consequential reliefs, including release of pensionary and service benefits. 2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the Santia community, which stands duly recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner was issued caste certificates by the competent authorities; the Tehsildar, Revenue Department on 10.08.1984 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner on 27.09.1984, affirming his Scheduled Caste status. The inclusion of Santia caste in the Scheduled Caste list is further corroborated by the report of the State Backward Classes Commission. 2.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 24.10.1992 through a regular selection process in the pay scale of ?950–1680. His service record, from inception, reflected his Scheduled Caste status. Over the years, he earned promotions; first as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 2012 and later as Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) on 16.03.2018, under office order dated 03.04.2018. His career spanned almost three decades without any adverse remark, charge-sheet, or complaint. 2.2. Vide order dated 30.01.2020, the respondents notified that the petitioner would retire upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021. The said order specifically recorded that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him as of that date. 2.3. However, in a wholly unexpected and arbitrary turn of events, just two days prior to his retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The sole allegation therein was that his initial appointment had been obtained by misrepresenting his caste status as Scheduled Caste (Santia). The charge-sheet was purportedly based on a complaint of 2014, allegedly made by his estranged wife Smt. Rama Devi; a document which neither bore her signature nor any date, and whose authenticity was never verified. 2.4. The petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply on 02.02.2021, asserting that both caste certificates had been issued by competent authorities and that Santia caste is a duly notified Scheduled Caste. 2.4. The petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply on 02.02.2021, asserting that both caste certificates had been issued by competent authorities and that Santia caste is a duly notified Scheduled Caste. He further contended that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of certain individuals misusing his ex-wife’s name to settle personal scores. Notably, the very complaint had earlier been forwarded by the Additional Director, Local Fund Audit, on 26.05.2014, and after thorough examination, the matter was closed, as recorded in departmental note-sheets dated 28.05.2014 to 03.03.2017, which explicitly concluded that no irregularity was found in the petitioner’s caste status. Despite this closure, the respondents inexplicably resurrected the issue after a lapse of nearly six years and issued the impugned charge-sheet on 29.01.2021; an act which is ex facie arbitrary, mala fide, and unsustainable in law. 2.5. The petitioner had already been granted the first and second Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) vide orders dated 07.01.2002 and 11.04.2011, respectively, and became entitled to the third ACP on 24.10.2019. However, the said benefit, along with his annual increment for 2020 and post-retirement dues including provisional pension, gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment, has been unjustifiably withheld, purportedly on account of the pendency of the said charge-sheet. Hence, the instant Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 is wholly arbitrary, vitiated by mala fides, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The allegations therein are baseless, as the Santia caste stands duly notified as a Scheduled Caste by the State Government. The petitioner’s appointment in 1992 was through a lawful and transparent process, and he served the Department with an unblemished record for over 28 years. Issuing a charge-sheet a day prior to retirement smacks of vindictiveness and amounts to a gross abuse of administrative authority. 3.1. It is further submitted that the impugned charge-sheet is founded on an unauthenticated and unsigned complaint allegedly made by the petitioner’s ex-wife in 2014, which had already been examined by the competent authorities and found to be devoid of merit. The revival of a matter already closed in 2017, that too after an unexplained delay of six years, renders the proceedings hopelessly barred by limitation and suffering from laches. 3.2. The revival of a matter already closed in 2017, that too after an unexplained delay of six years, renders the proceedings hopelessly barred by limitation and suffering from laches. 3.2. Counsel further draws attention to the departmental note- sheets revealing that the matter was duly investigated and closed by the Local Fund Audit Department in 2017, upon finding no irregularity. No fresh material or evidence has surfaced thereafter to justify reopening the matter. The entire exercise appears designed to harass the petitioner at the behest of certain vested interests. No preliminary enquiry was conducted, nor was any verification of the authenticity of the alleged complaint carried out. 3.3. It is also urged that the respondents have unlawfully withheld the petitioner’s legitimate retiral dues, including his third ACP, increments, provisional pension, gratuity, and provident fund, contrary to the settled principle that pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground to withhold such benefits. The action is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and in contravention of statutory provisions. 3.4. Learned counsel emphasizes that the respondents themselves, in 2017, had concluded that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was genuine. It is not the case of the respondents that any pecuniary loss was caused to the Government. In these circumstances, initiation of proceedings under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, after the petitioner’s retirement, is wholly unwarranted, since the said rule applies only in cases involving pecuniary loss or grave misconduct neither of which exists herein. 3.5. In view of the above, it is prayed that the impugned charge- sheet dated 29.01.2021 and all consequential proceedings be quashed and that the respondents be directed to release the petitioner’s pensionary and service benefits forthwith. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the writ petition, contending that the petitioner failed to produce his original caste certificate despite repeated communications issued between 2015 and 2020. According to the respondents, the Department made sustained efforts to verify the authenticity of the certificate, but the petitioner’s non-cooperative attitude necessitated the initiation of disciplinary proceedings culminating in the impugned charge-sheet. 4.1. It is further contended that the writ petition is premature, as it challenges a mere charge-sheet, an interlocutory step in the disciplinary process, without waiting for the conclusion of inquiry proceedings. 4.1. It is further contended that the writ petition is premature, as it challenges a mere charge-sheet, an interlocutory step in the disciplinary process, without waiting for the conclusion of inquiry proceedings. It is a settled proposition that a charge-sheet does not, by itself, confer any cause of action unless issued without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions. Hence, interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the inquiry process, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter. 5.1. Upon perusal of the record this Court finds that the petitioner’s caste status as Santia, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, stands conclusively established and undisputed. The respondents’ counsel, when specifically queried, candidly conceded that the caste certificates dated 10.08.1984 and 27.09.1984 issued by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner, respectively, are genuine documents issued by competent authorities. Once such certificates have been issued by the designated statutory functionaries, the question of the petitioner’s caste status ceases to be open for departmental scrutiny. 5.2. The material on record further reveals that the complaint relied upon by the respondents was duly inquired into by the Department and closed in 2017 after recording a categorical finding that no irregularity had been committed by the petitioner. No fresh material has surfaced thereafter to warrant reopening of the matter. The revival of a stale complaint after several years, culminating in the issuance of a charge-sheet on 29.01.2021, barely a day prior to the petitioner’s retirement, constitutes a gross abuse of administrative discretion and is patently arbitrary. 5.3. The legal position in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala , (2004) 2 SCC 105 , held that the validity of a caste certificate can be examined only by the duly constituted Caste Scrutiny or Verification Committee and not by the employer department. Similarly, in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development , (1994) 6 SCC 241 , the Apex Court laid down that the verification of caste claims is an exclusive function of the competent scrutiny committee under the prescribed procedure, and no parallel inquiry can be undertaken by administrative authorities. 5.4. In the present case, no such statutory body has ever invalidated the petitioner’s caste certificate. Commissioner, Tribal Development , (1994) 6 SCC 241 , the Apex Court laid down that the verification of caste claims is an exclusive function of the competent scrutiny committee under the prescribed procedure, and no parallel inquiry can be undertaken by administrative authorities. 5.4. In the present case, no such statutory body has ever invalidated the petitioner’s caste certificate. On the contrary, the certificates remain valid and subsisting on record, and the respondents have themselves conceded their genuineness. Therefore, the departmental authorities were wholly without jurisdiction to question the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste status or to found disciplinary proceedings on that basis. Any attempt to do so is impermissible in law and amounts to overstepping of administrative authority. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 and all consequential proceedings initiated thereunder are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner, including provisional pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and provident fund, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6.1. It is further observed that the petitioner shall also be entitled to the third ACP and pending annual increment as per rules, along with interest at the applicable rate in case of delay beyond the stipulated period. 6.2. No order as to costs.