The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Superintendent, Central Jail, being a separate administrative department, had no authority or competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Medical Officer deputed from the Medical and Health Department.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali made these observations while quashing the transfer orders of the petitioner that also included a direction to the Jail Superintendent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”).

The petitioner was serving as a Medical Officer under the Department of Medical & Health Services, and was posted to Central Jail on deputation for attending to and supervising the medical care of inmates.

Based on an alleged complaint, the Deputy Secretary, Medical & Health Services, issued transfer orders against the petitioner from Central Jail to Community Health Centre, and also directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Hence, a petition was filed against this order.

After perusing the records, the Court noted that the petitioner was working under the administrative control of the Medical and Health Department, and disciplinary enquiry could be initiated against him only by the competent authorities within that department.

“Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner, is an officer of a separate administrative department and possesses neither the authority nor the competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Medical Officer. Any such action, including issuance of a charge sheet, can only be undertaken by the Chief Medical and Health Officer or the Director of the Department of Medical and Health Services, in strict conformity with the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules and the CCA Rules, 1958.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that no material was found on record to suggest that the transfer was based on administrative exigency, performance issues, or any other legitimate ground.

In this light, it was held that the order reflected procedural impropriety, lack of jurisdiction and an arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion.

“The impugned transfer order (Annexure-5) suffers from a fundamental lack of jurisdiction, as the authority directing the relief and simultaneously suggesting disciplinary proceedings lacks competence under the governing service rule. Moreover, the procedural safeguards enshrined under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, and the principles of natural justice have not been observed. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the impugned action was in accordance with law or any established administrative norms.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the transfer orders were set aside.

Title: Kailash Sankhla v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 380

Click Here To Read/Download Order