Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14207) on 17 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:14207]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17737/2021
Om Prakash S/o Shri Sawta Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Hudiya, Post Manana, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
5. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Circle Sirohi,
District Sirohi.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17684/2021
Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Thakra Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Meerpura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
5. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Circle Sirohi,
District Sirohi.
----Respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:14207] (2 of 5) [CW-17737/2021]
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17735/2021
Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Hema Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Begawas, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
5. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Circle Sirohi,
District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak &
Ms. Sonal Parihar for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/03/2025
1. By way of present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners
have challenged the order dated 24.11.2021, whereby petitioners
have been dismissed from services by invoking Rule 19 (ii) of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958').
2. Mr. Jayram Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that by order dated 15.11.2021, the petitioners were
[2025:RJ-JD:14207] (3 of 5) [CW-17737/2021]
placed under suspension followed by the order impugned dated
24.11.2021, whereby they were dismissed from service.
3. He argued that the respondent no. 4 has proceeded in undue
haste and has dismissed the petitioners from services regardless
of the fact that the conditions mentioned in Rule 19(ii) of the
Rules of 1958 were totally absent.
4. Learned counsel argued that the reason given by the
respondents while dismissing the petitioners from services that if
the petitioners are not removed, it would encourage such acts and
would leave adverse impact on the discipline of the police force,
are not relevant and meets the requirement of Rule 19(ii) of the
Rules of 1958.
5. He argued that the allegations, which were levelled against
the petitioners were required to be considered on the basis of
material and evidence - simply because allegations of involvement
in the illegal recovery of the narcotic substance were levelled, the
petitioners, who were regularly recruited Constables could not
have been dismissed from the services in the manner as has been
done.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 1431/2022) filed by one Seema Jakhar, who too
was alleged to be involved in the very same case, has been
allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 21.02.2025 and
petitioners' case is not different.
7. Mr. Deepak Chandak appearing for the respondents was not
in a position to satisfy the Court as to how the case of the
petitioners is different than the case of Seema Jakhar (supra).
[2025:RJ-JD:14207] (4 of 5) [CW-17737/2021]
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. On going through the common order of dismissal dated
24.11.2021, this Court finds that the respondent no. 4 has
proceeded in hot haste and was swayed by the allegations, which
were levelled against the petitioners.
10. Without commenting upon the petitioners' involvement in the
felony or not and refraining from dealing with the correctness of
the allegations levelled, this Court is of the view that the case in
hands does not fall within the ambit of provisions of sub-rule (ii) of
Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958.
11. The respondent no.4 has not recorded any finding as to how
the regular inquiry against the petitioners is not practicable and
feasible. There is no compelling reasons for which the regular
disciplinary inquiry contemplated under the Rules of 1958 should
have been done away with.
12. All these writ petitions are, therefore, allowed.
13. The order of dismissal dated 24.11.2021 qua each of the
petitioners being clearly contrary to law is hereby quashed and set
aside.
14. The respondents shall forthwith reinstate the petitioners
preferably within a period of 30 days from today.
15. 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.
16. Needless to observe that setting aside the order impugned
will though result in reinstatement of the petitioners, but they
[2025:RJ-JD:14207] (5 of 5) [CW-17737/2021]
shall be kept under suspension as the order dated 15.11.2021
would automatically get revived.
17. The respondents shall be free to take appropriate
proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law, if so
advised.
18. Stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
45-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
