Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10911) on 24 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:10911]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11766/2023
Geegaram S/o Shri Magnaram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Rohicha Khurd, P.s. Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (H.q.), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2377/2023
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Hemaram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village
Deramoniyon Ki Dhani, Baytu, Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Pali, District Pali.
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2023
Manish Panwar S/o Shri Chhoga Ram Panwar, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Rudkali, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
[2025:RJ-JD:10911] (2 of 6) [CW-11766/2023]
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Pali, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
Mr. Vivek Firoda
Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/02/2025
1. The present writ petitions impugn the order dated
06.04.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 - Inspector General of
Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioners have
been dismissed with immediate effect from the services while
invoking the provisions of rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). The order of
Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2022 affirming the said order
dated 06.04.2022 is also under challenge.
2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties and
considering that the petitioners have been dismissed from
services, the matters were finally heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
respondents have illegally invoked rule 19 of the Rules of 1958
and dismissed the petitioners from services.
4. Learned counsel submitted that rule 19(ii) of the Rules of
1958 can be invoked only when the disciplinary authority is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded that it is not reasonably
[2025:RJ-JD:10911] (3 of 6) [CW-11766/2023]
practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules. He
argued that the petitioners were serving as Constable and Sub-
Inspector, respectively and there was no reason or justification
with the respondents to dispense with the disciplinary inquiry
envisaged under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent - State on the other
hand submitted that the petitioners being a Constable/Sub-
Inspector in the Police Force have indulged in extortion by way of
threat of false implication should not be granted any indulgence.
He argued that when facts of extortion came to the notice of the
respondents, in order to take quick and effective action, the
disciplinary authority invoked the provisions of rule 19(ii) of the
Rules of 1958 read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
and dismissed the petitioners from services so as to send strong
message in the department.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents was, however, not in a
position to satisfy the Court as to why it was not reasonably
practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under law and
dispense with the inquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
dated 14.03.2023 rendered by this Court in the case of Badri
Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
14681/2019).
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. The petitioners have been dismissed from service while
invoking rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958, which is pari-materia to
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The reasons recorded in
[2025:RJ-JD:10911] (4 of 6) [CW-11766/2023]
the order impugned are that the disciplinary inquiry under Rules
16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958 is not practicable. Another
observation has been made that such misconduct is an offence
also, which is unpardonable.
10. According to this Court, the reasons recorded by the
disciplinary authority are not relevant so far as requirement of rule
19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 is concerned. Respondents' stand that
keeping the persons like the petitioners is against the image of the
Police force is also untenable.
11. So far as chance of prolongation of disciplinary proceedings
is concerned, the same can be warded off by placing the
delinquent under suspension and expediting the proceedings. If
these reasons are upheld then the provisions relating to
conducting the inquiry would be rendered otiose.
12. The order impugned clearly shows that the State has invoked
Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 which is pari-materia to Article
311(2) of the Constitution. Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 is
reproduced hereinfra:-
"19(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not
reasonably practicable to follow the procedure
prescribed in the said rules; or"
13. Above quoted provision is unambiguous and does not require
any indepth legal understanding to decipher that the same can be
resorted to when it is not practicable to hold inquiry or the
procedure prescribed in Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958 is
not feasible. That apart, it mandates the disciplinary authority to
record reasons that it is not practicable to follow the procedure. A
[2025:RJ-JD:10911] (5 of 6) [CW-11766/2023]
reading of the order and even reply does not indicate any such
satisfaction arrived much less reasons recorded by the disciplinary
authority.
14. A perusal of the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the
Appellate Authority shows that the Appellate Authority has simply
gone on the purported dent which the petitioners have caused to
the reputation and image of the department and that since the
petitioners are behind bars, the proceedings will take sufficient
time. The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the
disciplinary authority has wrongfully invoked powers under rule
19(ii) of the Rules of 1958.
15. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. The orders
impugned dated 06.04.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 so
also 20.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority are, hereby,
quashed and set aside.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the
petitioners will not claim salary for the intervening period i.e. from
06.04.2022 to the date of order instant, on the principles of no
work no pay. He nevertheless prayed that the respondents be
directed to consider such period notionally as served by the
petitioners.
17. The respondents shall forthwith reinstate the petitioners
however not later than 30 days from today.
18. As a consequence of setting aside the dismissal order, the
petitioners shall be treated to be in service and shall be given
notional benefits for such period.
19. Needless to observe that the respondents shall be free to
proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
[2025:RJ-JD:10911] (6 of 6) [CW-11766/2023]
20. Stay applications stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
215-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
