ORDER : 1. Instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-16), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 2. The requisite facts in brief are that on 01.09.1997, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade – III, whereafter he got promoted on the post of Teacher Grade – II. 3. A criminal case came to be registered against him (FIR No.249/2012) on 23.09.2012 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. In furtherance whereof, he was sent to the judicial custody on 15.12.2012 and he remained in custody upto 21.12.2012. 4. As petitioner remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension vide order dated 22.03.2015. 5. Thereafter, on 08.02.2022, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958’) against the petitioner and vide memorandum of charges dated 25.02.2022, two charges were framed, which revolved around petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case and attempt to conceal the factum of he being imprisoned. 6. Another charge-sheet dated 18.04.2022 came to served upon the petitioner for remaining absent without leave between 24.08.2016 and 21.02.2022. 7. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure-12) and raised a grievance that the documents which were provided to him were only Exhibit P-01 to P-96, whereas the Department has relied upon more documents being Exhibit P-01 to P-135 and he was spontaneously asked to accept/deny the documents and those documents had become part of disciplinary proceedings. 8. The petitioner had asked the Inquiry Officer to provide copies of the additional record/documents and also sought time in this regard so that he could defend his case after verifying the documents. 9. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and furnished a report dated 28.07.2024. 10. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 17.08.2024, stating inter-alia that charges framed against him have been found proved and asked him to furnish his defense by 03.09.2024. 11. Immediately on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner sent a representation/letter dated 29.08.2024 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow him a month’s time to file representation/reply as his father was indisposed. 12. 11. Immediately on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner sent a representation/letter dated 29.08.2024 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow him a month’s time to file representation/reply as his father was indisposed. 12. The Disciplinary Authority, however, proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 04.09.2024 and dismissed the petitioner from services. 13. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel challenged the inquiry report dated 28.07.2024 so also the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 04.09.2024 on various grounds which can be summarised as under:- (i) The Disciplinary Authority has violated the principles of natural justice and in spite of petitioner’s request, no time was allowed to file representation/reply to the show cause notice dated 17.08.2024; (ii) Since the criminal case pursuant to the FIR No.249/2012 was pending, it was incumbent upon the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance; (iii) The inquiry report dated 28.07.2024 suffers from irregularity, inasmuch as the documents which were provided to the petitioner were only Exhibit P-01 to P-96, whereas the record with the Disciplinary Authority shows that it had dealt with more documents (being Exhibit P-01 to P-135); (iv) Submissions were also made on the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. 14. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the inquiry report in the manner attempted to and if the petitioner is so aggrieved by the inquiry report on the grounds raised herein, the appropriate forum is the Appellate Authority under the Rules of 1958. 15. He submitted that the petitioner had never requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance and therefore, the respondent - Department was justified in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against him in the year 2022. 16. So far as challenge to the order dated 04.09.2024 being in violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents argued that even for such ground, the petitioner can prefer an appeal as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and this Court should not interfere in the present case, more particularly having regard to the petitioner’s conduct. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. So far as continuing with the proceedings is concerned, true it is that, in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 so also in some other decisions , considering the factual matrix, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the disciplinary proceeding should be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal case; but in absence of any request or challenge to the continuation of proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority or the Department suo motu cannot be expected to keep its hands off, more particularly when the charges levelled against the petitioner are not exactly identical to the allegation levelled in criminal case. Be that as it may. The stage of staying the disciplinary proceeding has since passed. 19. So far as petitioner’s challenge to the findings of the inquiry report and the manner in which the inquiry has been conducted is concerned, this Court is of the view that the challenge thereto cannot be done in a piecemeal. 20. Various findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are subservient to evidence, hence, this Court would refrain from entering into such arena, even on the grounds which have been canvassed by Mr. Balia. The same are better left to be considered by the Appellate Authority as and when such occasion arises. 21. But, the question which has been raised about violation of principles of natural justice calls for concern and attention of this Court. 22. It is not in dispute that when the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 17.08.2024 to the petitioner seeking his explanation/defense with a copy of the inquiry report dated 28.07.2024, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 29.08.2024 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow him a month’s time so that he can defend his case and file his representation. 23. But for the reasons best known to the Disciplinary Authority, despite noticing petitioner’s request for allowing some time on account of health conditions of his father, it has proceeded to pass the order impugned, which has as serious consequence as dismissal from services. 24. According to this Court, dismissal from services is like a civil death to a Government servant - gravest form of punishment which can be awarded to an employee. 24. According to this Court, dismissal from services is like a civil death to a Government servant - gravest form of punishment which can be awarded to an employee. In such a case, the Disciplinary Authority should not proceed in haste. And if a seemingly genuine request (which even if looks like a lame excuse) is made, at least some breathing time should be provided to an employee. 25. The Disciplinary Authority has not done the same and hastened to pass the order under challenge. Such approach, in the opinion of this Court has violated the principles of natural justice. 26. This Court is of the view that since the order impugned is contrary to the principles of natural justice, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various cases, including the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors. , reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 . 27. The writ petition is thus allowed, to the extent indicated above. 28. The order impugned dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-16) is hereby quashed and set aside. 29. The petitioner is allowed 30 days’ time to file his representation/reply pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17.08.2024. 30. The reply shall be filed latest by 17.02.2025. No further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner, if he does not file his representation/reply by such date. 31. On receipt of the reply, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate reasoned order afresh. 32. The petitioner’s right to challenge such order of the Disciplinary Authority so also the inquiry report on all permissible grounds shall stand reserved. 33. Neither the observation made by this Court in the order instant shall prejudice the decision and discretion of the Disciplinary Authority nor shall it take away any of petitioner’s right, as the present order is confined to violation of principles of natural justice only. 34. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.