Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prithvi Raj vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41551]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17863/2022
Prithvi Raj S/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of
Chak 1-TK, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB),
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB),
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police (Admn.), Anti Corruption
Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
6. The Addl. Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia with
Mr. Sunil Fageria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sandeep Soni.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
10/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 17.03.2020 (Annex.9) passed by the Superintendent of
Police (Admn.), Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur,
whereby, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon
the petitioner and recovery of salary and allowances which were
paid to him after the actual date of superannuation.
[2024:RJ-JD:41551] (2 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that
the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the respondent
department on 22.10.1982. While the petitioner was working in
the respondent department, he was served with a charge-sheet on
11.09.2013 (Annex.5). In pursuance of the charge-sheet, a
Departmental Inquiry was conducted under the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. After
completion of the Inquiry, vide order dated 17.03.2020, the
disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from
service and recovery of salary and other allowances from the
petitioner after the date of his actual superannuation to be
deposited in the State treasury. An appeal was preferred by the
petitioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated
15.09.2022. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the argument
of attacking the orders dated 17.03.2020 and 15.09.2022 on the
ground that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is
disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working
in the respondent department on the post of Constable which is
the lowest post in the department and in the entire service career,
he has not been served with any punishment and his service
record has been unblemished. He, therefore, prays that while
maintaining the order of punishment, the punishment is prayed to
be reasonably reduced considering the misconduct committed by
the petitioner and taking into account the unblemished service
record of the petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JD:41551] (3 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]
5. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the following judgments rendered by this Court:-
1. Onkar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9714/2016)
2. Hari Singh Bhuria Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2231/2000)
3. State of Rajasthn Vs. Hari Singh Bhuria (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.1657/2019)
4. Gopal Prasad Thakur Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
(W.P. (S) No.4919/2005).
6. Per contra, Mr. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General is
unable to counter the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and he submits that the respondents have taken
into consideration the misconduct committed by the petitioner and
has reasonably awarded the punishment commensurate with his
misconduct and the same does not warrants any interference.
7. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case including the impugned
orders dated 17.03.2020 and 15.09.2022.
8. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the
respondent department in the year 1982 and since then, he has
been serving the department for almost 38 years. The entire
career of 38 years of the petitioner has remained unblemished and
he has never faced any inquiry for any misconduct committed by
him in discharge of his duties.
9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has served the
department with utmost zeal and his service career remained
unblemished, therefore, this Court is of the view that the
[2024:RJ-JD:41551] (4 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]
punishment awarded to the petitioner in the present case is
disproportionate, more particularly, when the charge against the
petitioner is that while entering into the services of the respondent
department, he has submitted a forged marksheet issued by
Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Bhopal.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the punishment awarded to the
petitioner needs to be interfered with as the same is excessive.
The punishment awarded is not commensurate with the
misconduct committed by the petitioner and, therefore, while
maintaining the order of punishment dated 17.03.2020, the order
of removal from service imposed by the respondents is quashed
and set aside and the rest of the order, whereby, the petitioner
was directed to deposit the entire amount of salary and allowances
after the actual date of superannuation in the Government
treasury is maintained. Accordingly, the appellate order dated
15.09.2022 also stands modified to that extent.
11. It is further ordered that the petitioner will be entitled for all
other service benefits taking into consideration his date of
superannuation i.e. 30.04.2018. The amount as ordered to be
deposited vide order dated 17.03.2020 shall be adjusted while
paying the other service benefits to the petitioner.
12. The respondents shall do the needful within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
19-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
