CW / 3103 / 2007 (BALRAM VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/10/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order for alleged unauthorized absence from duty. HELD- The inquiry substantially complied with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958. Past absences did not constitute double jeopardy, as dismissal rested on the separately charged ten-day absence. The medical explanation remained unsubstantiated, and no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out.
2
SOSA / 1733 / 2026 (MONU MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The appellants sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, raising a plea of private defence. HELD-Whether the force used exceeded permissible limits must be assessed in the context of imminent danger, the circumstances of the occurrence and the injuries sustained, not the ultimate consequence alone. The arguable issues warranted reappraisal in appeal; the sentences were suspended.
3
CW / 8252 / 2015 (AVINASH BHATNAGAR VS RSRTC AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 Whether the petitioner could claim compassionate appointment as an Assistant Traffic Inspector after accepting appointment as a Conductor, without objection, and joining service.HELD-Once the petitioner accepted and joined the post offered on compassionate grounds, his right to such appointment stood exercised. His qualifications and the subsequent restoration of the higher post could not entitle him to a second consideration. The writ petition was dismissed.
4
CW / 9613 / 2010 (SHANTI LAL JAIN VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside his dismissal from service for financial irregularities on grounds of non-supply of documents and subsequent criminal acquittal. HELD-Non-supply of documents vitiates disciplinary proceedings only if demonstrable prejudice is established. Subsequent criminal acquittal and repayment do not automatically erase independently established misconduct. The findings being evidence-based and dismissal not shockingly disproportionate, the writ petition was dismissed.
5
CRLA / 613 / 1996 (STATE VS BASANT KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2026 The petitioner sought to challenge the acquittal of a public servant for offences under Sections 409, 477-A, 467, 468 and 471 IPC due to absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. HELD-Sanction under Section 197 CrPC depends on the connection between the alleged act and official duty. An acquittal warrants interference only upon material legal error, perversity or patent illegality. The State failed to establish such grounds; the appeal was dismissed.
1
CW / 17704 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DR. RUPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, S/O SHRI NAND KISHOR SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2026 Whether suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, could be quashed for non-service of a charge-sheet within three months. HELD-Suspension is permissible when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Non-service of a charge-sheet within three months does not automatically invalidate suspension. The Tribunal’s order, quashing suspension on this ground despite the premature challenge, was set aside and the suspension revived.
2
CRLMP / 6557 / 2024 (LIYAKAT ALI S/O NOOR MOHAMMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/09/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance and revisional orders, challenging the premature assessment of medical evidence, causation of death and intention. HELD-At the cognizance stage, only a prima facie case is to be examined; meticulous appreciation of evidence and conclusions on the nature of the offence are premature. Both orders were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, leaving the merits open.
3
CRLMP / 5380 / 2024 (AMAR SINGH S/O SHRIRAM MEENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2026 Whether the petitioner was entitled to a cloned copy of CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution. HELD-Section 207 CrPC mandates supply of electronic records relied upon by the prosecution. Cloned copies must ordinarily be furnished to ensure a fair trial under Article 21. The impugned order was unsustainable in law and was quashed and set aside, subject to safeguards protecting privacy and identity.
4
CW / 13376 / 2020 (SAFIYA KHAN S/O LATE SHRI MISHRIYA VS SHAKOOR KHAN SON OF LATE SHRI MISHRIYA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2026 The petitioner sought permission to exhibit a duly stamped but unregistered instrument in a partition suit. HELD-Objections other than deficiency of stamp duty may be deferred until final judgment. The instrument was permitted to be exhibited, but its admissibility for want of registration remained open for the trial court to decide on merits. The order refusing exhibition was set aside.
5
CFA / 369 / 2019 (SMT GOMA DEVI W/O SHRI MANNA LAL D/O SHRI KANA VS LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA S/O SHRI GAINDI LAL SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2026 The appellant sought cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 16.04.2009 for non-payment of the full sale consideration. HELD- under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, non-payment of the entire consideration does not invalidate a completed registered sale where title was intended to pass; the seller’s remedy is recovery of unpaid consideration. Sale deed, possession and mutation supported transfer. Appeal dismissed
