JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.

1. By this order all three appeals are being disposed of as they involve common question of law.

Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12107/2012

2. The case of the petitioner Mahendra Singh Ola in the petition is that he is an Ex-Army personnel. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents for the post of Sepoy, the petitioner applied as an Ex-Army Personnel and after due process he was appointed in Excise Preventive Force. After successful completion of training, the petitioner started discharging his duties as a Sepoy under District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu of Excise Preventive Force, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. While the petitioner was on duty at Chirawa, he received an information regarding a dispute in his family members. Thereupon, the petitioner proceeded to his village by taking one day's casual leave for 8.5.2012. However, a false FIR was lodged against other members of his family for offences under Sections 451, 323 and 379 of IPC, wherein the petitioner was also falsely implicated. In connection with the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 15.5.2012 and subsequently he was released on bail on 19.5.2012. Respondent No. 1, without issuing any memo of explanation or charge-sheet and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, issued order dated 17.7.2012 dismissing the services of the petitioner in terms of Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereafter referred as 'the Rules') on the ground that a case for offence under Sections 323, 451 and 379 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was not suitable for the services of the State Government. The order impugned in the writ petition dated 17.7.2012, reads as follows:-

jktLFkku vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny esa o"kZ 2010&11 ds nkSjku HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks lh/kh HkrhZ ls bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k Øekad iå2¼,½laLFkk@vkc@fuåny@2009@52 fnukad 13@02@2012 }kjk nks o"kZ dh ifjoh{kk vof/k ds fy, flikgh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k tkdj vkns'k Øaekd iå1¼½laLFkk@vkc@fuåny@2010&11@113 fnukad 12@03@2012 }kjk inLFkkiu fd;k x;k FkkA

mDr ifjoh{kk/khu izf'k{kq flikfg;ksa esa ls Jh egsUnz flag iq= Jh izgykn tkV] fuoklh vjMkork] iqfyl Fkkuk&fpM+kok] ftyk >qa>uwa dk inLFkkiu vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny fpM+kok ¼>qa>uwa½ esa fd;k x;k FkkA

Jh egsUnz flag] flikgh vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny fpM+kok ¼>qa>uwa½ esa inLFkkiu ds nkSjku fnukad 08@05@2012 dk ,d fnu dk vkdfLed vodk'k ysdj fnukad 07@05@2012 dks lka;dky ?kj x;k rFkk fnukad 09@05@2012 dks drZO; LFky ij mifLFkr gksdj iqu% fnukad 15@05@2012 ls 19@05@2012 rd ds vodk'k ckcr izkFkZuk i= nsdj ?kj pyk x;kA

Jh egsUnz flag] flikgh ds fo#} fnukad 08@05@2012 dks Hkkjrh; n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 451] 323] 379 ds vUrxZr iqfyl Fkkuk fpM+kok ¼>qa>uwa½ esa izdj.k la[;k 213@2012 ntZ gksdj 24 ?k.Vs ls vf/kd U;kf;d fgjklr esa jgk gS rFkk U;kf;d eftLVªsV] fpM+kok] ftyk >qa>uwa ds vkns'k fnukad 19@05@2012 ds }kjk tekur ij NksM+k x;k gSA

bl izdkj Jh egsUnz flag] flikgh ds fo#} /kkjk 323] 451 ,oa 379 Hkkånaålaå ds rgr izdj.k ntZ gksdj vUos"k.kk/khu gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr esa Jh egsUnz flag jkT; lsok esa mi;qDr ugha gksus ls budh lsok,a jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds fu;e 23¼,½ ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA

¼fnus'k ;kno½

vkcdkjh vk;qDr]

jktLFkku] mn;iqj

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2012, the petitioner preferred the writ petition.

4. In reply, it was averred that the petitioner had been dismissed from service in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 23A of the Rules and in the said rule there is no provision for giving any prior notice. The appointment letter of the petitioner was subject to character verification to be received from the police and in the instant case the FIR itself was lodged against him and since he was found involved in criminal case, services of the petitioner were dispensed with by invoking the powers under Rule 23A of the Rules. The petitioner remained in custody from 15.5.2012 to 19.5.2012. The petitioner had not informed