Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjeet Singh vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:34833) on 6 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:34833]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3191/2014
Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Hajari Singh, aged about 40 years,
Resident of House no.3 Patanjali Vihar, New Bhopalpura, Udaipur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Home Department,
government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur range, Udaipur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teja Ram Choudhary for Mr. A.K.
Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar for Mr. Rituraj
Singh
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
06/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed against order dated
22.08.2007 (Annexure-8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority,
order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-10) passed by the Appellate
Authority and order dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure-12) passed by
the Revisional Authority.
2. The facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a
Constable with the respondent-Department way back in the year
1992. While filling the application form, in response to the
question whether any criminal proceedings were pending against
[2025:RJ-JD:34833] (2 of 6) [CW-3191/2014]
him, he replied in negative. However, admittedly, a criminal
proceeding was pending against him.
3. Vide police verification report dated 08.11.1992, pendency of
the criminal proceeding was reflected. However, despite police
verification report dated 08.11.1992 been furnished, the petitioner
was afforded appointment on 07.12.1992.
4. In the year 2006, a charge-sheet was served on the
petitioner with a specific charge that he concealed the fact of a
criminal proceeding being pending against him.
5. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him and vide order dated 22.08.2007, a
punishment of stoppage of three grade increments with
cumulative effect was imposed on him.
6. Appeal against the above order stood dismissed vide order
dated 17.10.2007 and the review petition also stood dismissed
vide order dated 27.04.2012.
7. It is aggrieved of the above orders that the present writ
petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent-Department became aware of the criminal proceeding
pending against the petitioner, way back in the year 1992 but
despite the same, he was afforded appointment. Further, on the
pretext of the fact having come to the knowledge subsequently,
even his probation period was extended twice and his services
were confirmed vide order dated 08.01.1996. Meaning thereby, he
had already been punished qua the same charges in the year
1992 itself.
[2025:RJ-JD:34833] (3 of 6) [CW-3191/2014]
9. Learned counsel, while relying upon the recent Apex Court
judgment in Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.10590 of 2024) (decided on
01.04.2025) and that in P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu
Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 (decided on 08.08.2005),
submitted that the charge-sheet served after a period of 14 years
of his appointment would be of no consequence, and the
punishment as imposed on the petitioner deserves interference on
the said sole count.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
although the petitioner had been offered appointment at that point
of time, as soon as the fact of his having concealed the fact of
criminal proceeding being pending against him came to light, the
charge-sheet was served on him by the Department. The fact of
the criminal proceeding was brought to the knowledge of the
department vide a complaint filed by one private individual. The
concealment having been admitted on the part of the petitioner,
the order of punishment do not deserve any interference.
11. Heard the Counsels and perused the record.
12. What is admitted is that at the initial stage itself, before
appointment been afforded to the petitioner, police verification
report dated 08.11.1992 was very well available with the
authorities vide which it was informed that some criminal
proceeding is pending against the petitioner. Despite the said
police verification report, the petitioner was afforded appointment
on 07.12.1992.
13. Further, because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, admittedly, his probation period was
[2025:RJ-JD:34833] (4 of 6) [CW-3191/2014]
extended twice and he was confirmed in the year 1996. Meaning
thereby, he was put to an indirect punishment of a fixed salary as
payable to a probationer. The extension of probation period twice,
is also a clear proof of the fact that the respondent-authorities
were aware at that point of time, of the pendency of criminal
proceeding against the petitioner. Despite the same, no
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him at that stage.
14. The petitioner was confirmed in the year 1996 and since
then, he continued to work without any demur. It is only in the
year 2006 that a charge sheet was served on him.
15. This Court is of the clear view that the service of charge-
sheet after a period of 14 years itself was erroneous and contrary
to the settled principles of law. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Amresh Shrivastava (supra) while upholding a delayed charge
sheet, it is always to be seen by the Court as to how much the
disciplinary authority was serious in pursuing the charges against
its employees. Therein the Court observed that where there is an
inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the
alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department,
the answer must go in favour of the employee.
16. The Court therein while relying upon the earlier judgments in
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr. [1990
(Suppl.) SCC 738] and in P.V. Mahadevan (supra) further held
that continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue
delay would be unjust causing unnecessary monetary distress and
damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes
committed by the Department in initiating disciplinary
proceedings.
[2025:RJ-JD:34833] (5 of 6) [CW-3191/2014]
17. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, there is no
reason assigned as to why the department proceeded to initiate
the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in the year
2006 despite of it being aware of the criminal proceedings being
pending against the petitioner, way back in the year 1992.
18. A meek reason of some complaint filed by some private
individual is of no consequence as it is clear on record that the
Department did not come to know about the criminal proceedings
for the first time by virtue of the said complaint. The department
was very well aware of the said fact right from the inception and
despite the same, it not only afforded appointment to the
petitioner, but even punished him appropriately by extending his
probation period twice.
19. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a period of 14
years without any justified reason or satisfactory explanation for
the said delay, cannot be held to be valid.
20. Further, all the orders impugned does not reflect any
application of mind on part of any of the authority concerned. The
specific stand of the petitioner that he had already been punished
by extension of probation period, was not even taken into
consideration by the authorities. Order dated 22.08.2007 i.e. the
first order of punishment reflects that the authority concerned just
recorded a cursory finding to the effect that charges No.1 and 2
are clearly proved on record, whereas no such material was
available or evident to be available, on record.
21. Once this Court has reached to the conclusion that even the
initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a period of 14 years was
[2025:RJ-JD:34833] (6 of 6) [CW-3191/2014]
improper and contrary to the principles of law, the consequential
orders of punishment also would not stand.
22. Further, it is a clear case of double jeopardy as it is admitted
on record that the probation period of the petitioner was extended
twice.
23. In view of the above analysis, writ petition is allowed. The
order of punishment as imposed vide order dated 22.08.2007
(Annexure-8) is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequenty,
orders dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-10) and 27.04.2012
(Annexure-12) are also quashed and set aside.
24. The consequences shall follow.
25. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
329-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
