Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pyare Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23070) on 13 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:23070]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18071/2023

Pyare Lal S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o H.No. 24, Shikargarh Enclave Residential Colony,
Jodhpur. The Then Head Constable No.1045, Reserve Police Line,
Commissionerate, Jodhpur.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of
         Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, City-
         Jaipur-303002
3.       The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jodhpur.
4.       The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate,
         Jodhpur (East).
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Ms. Abhilasha Bora assisted by
                                     Ms. Khushbu Choudhary
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
                                     Mr. Deepak Chandak


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

13/05/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 18.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.4-Deputy

Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jodhpur (East),

whereby, the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade

increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the

petitioner, as well as the appellate order dated 14.10.2020 passed

by the respondent No.3-Commissioner Of Police,

Commissionerate, Jodhpur, whereby, the penalty imposed upon

the petitioner was modified and reduced to stoppage of one

annual grade increment without cumulative effect, and against the

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (2 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

order dated 19.05.2023 passed by His Excellency the Governor of

Rajasthan, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner

against the appellate order dated 14.10.2020 has been rejected

and the same was communicated vide order dated 05.06.2023

issued by the Joint Sectretary Home (Appeal).

3. Briefly noted, the facts in the present writ petition are that

the petitioner was initially working on the post of Head Constable

Police Station, Mathaniya, Jodhpur East, and while he was posted

at Banar Police Station, disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against him by the respondents under Rajasthan Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter

referred to as the Rules of 1958) in relation to an incident, which

occurred on 12.09.2019. The respondents, after receiving a

confidential complaint, got the matter investigated by the

Assistant Police Commissioner, Jodhpur East. An enquiry was

conducted by the Assistant Police Commissioner, wherein, the

petitioner was exonerated vide report dated 04.03.2020.

However, being dissatisfied with the report dated

04.03.2020, the respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Jodhpur

East, issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the

Rules of 1958 vide order dated 09.04.2020. The petitioner filed a

detailed reply to the charge-sheet so issued. Being dissatisfied

with the reply filed by the petitioner and without considering the

submissions made therein, the respondent No.4 imposed a

punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without

cumulative effect vide order dated 18.06.2020. Thereafter, being

aggreived of the order dated 18.06.2020, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur. In the

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (3 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

appeal so preferred, the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, vide

order dated 14.10.2020 modified the punishment and reduced it

to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative

effect. The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated

14.10.2020 by way of a revision petition before His Excellency the

Governor, however, the same was dismissed. Hence, the present

writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently submits

that in relation to the incident, which occurred on 12.09.2019, the

petitioner did not commit any fault in holding the investigation and

there was no violation of the established procedures on his part.

She submits that the petitioner has acted in consonance with the

directions issued by the Station House Officer and, therefore, he

cannot be held responsible for any alleged misconduct. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the detailed

preliminary enqyiry, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner

vide report dated 04.03.2020. Despite this, the Disciplinary

Authority, while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer,

has proceeded to pass the order of punishment. She submits that

before passing of the punishment order, no notice for

disagreement with the enquiry report has been served upon the

petitioner, despite the specific request made in this regard by the

petitioner in his reply. She further submits that since there is no

show cause notice for disagreement, the disciplinary authority

could not have proceeded to pass the punishment order in the

present case. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (4 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.08.1998 in Punjab National Bank

& Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even

after expressing the disagreement, the order passed by the

disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment is entirely a

non-speaking and unreasoned order. She submits that merely the

charges mentioned in the charge-sheet have been reiterated in

the punishment order without assigning any reasons whatsoever

and, hence, the order of the disciplinary authority is, on the face

of it, a non-speaking and arbitrary order. She submits that the

appellate authority has also not taken into consideration the

detailed submissions made by the petitioner and passed the order

which is not in confirmity with the provisions of law and on the

same footing, the revisional order has been passed without

appreciating the correct factual and legal position and, therefore,

the same is also an arbitrary order. She, therefore, prays that the

present writ petition may be allowed and the orders dated

18.06.2020 (Annex.4), 14.10.2020 (Annex.5) and 19.05.2023,

which was communicated vide order dated 05.06.2023 (Annex.6)

may be quashed and set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that the disciplinary authority has taken

into consideration the statements of the witnesses produced

before the enquiry officer during the preliminary enquiry. As the

disciplinary authority was not convinced with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, therefore, it has imposed the punishment upon

the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondents is

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (5 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

not in a position to refute the fact that a show cause notice for

disagreement with the enquiry report was never served upon the

petitioner. He further submits that the disciplinary authority has

taken into consideration a confidential enquiry report prepared in

the matter as well as the other material available on record to

arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct

and, therefore, the punishment has rightly been imposed upon

him. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be

dismissed as no interference is warranted by this Court in such

matter.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant records of the case including the

impugned orders dated 18.06.2020 and 14.10.2020.

7. The petitioner was facing an enquiry for the incident, which

occurred on 12.09.2019 and in pursuance of the same, the matter

was enquired into by appointing an Enquiry Officer of the rank of

Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Assistant Commissioner of

Police has filed a report on 04.03.2020, wherein, the petitioner

has been given a clean chit. However, while disagreeing with the

report of the preliminary enquiry, the respondent No.4 has

imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments

without cumulative effect without issuing any notice of

disagreement. Upon preferring the appeal, the said punishment

was reduced to stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect. This court takes note of the fact that in the

preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner has been exonerated,

however, without issuing any notice of disagreement to the

petitioner, the disciplinary authority, after having taken into

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (6 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

consideration the statements recorded in the enquiry report as

well as one more confidential enquiry report, has imposed a

punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without

cumulative effect.

8. This court is of the considered view that if there is a

disagreement by the disciplinary authority on the preliminary

enquiry report, then a show cause notice must be served upon the

delinquent officer as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra). The relevant observations

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Behari

Misra (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:

"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."

9. This court further observes that the punishment order dated

18.06.2020 is totally a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The

[2025:RJ-JD:23070] (7 of 7) [CW-18071/2023]

disciplinary authority, without giving any appropriate reasons and

merely after mentioning that it has considered the conduct of the

petitioner on the basis of a verbal complaint, has reached to the

conclusion that the petitioner has committed a misconduct and

imposed a punishment upon him. The appellate authority, in the

same fashion, has not considered the facts in its entirety and has

reiterated the order passed by the disciplinary authority while only

interfering with the quantum of punishment by reducing it to

stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative