ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 1/3/2021 passed by Superintendent of Police, Pali, District – Pali, whereby, exercising power under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules, 1958’) while dispensing with the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958, petitioners have been dismissed from service. Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner Amloo Ram under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1958 has also been rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur by order dated 12/10/2021.

2. The petitioners, who were working on the post of Constable, were issued notices for preliminary inquiry indicating that they were having contact with Jagdish @ Jambaram Devasi through Whatsapp calling & chat and the said contact is against the discipline of police force and on the basis of said allegation, explanation were sought from the petitioners. The petitioners responded to the same.

3. The additional Superintendent of Police, Bali submitted a preliminary inquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Pali on 1/3/2021 and the Superintendent of Police, Pali, without initiating any inquiry against the petitioners, while exercising powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 dismissed the petitioners from service by orders dated 1/3/2021. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner Amloo Ram filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1958 before the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, which was dismissed on 12/10/2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the order of dismissal dated 1/3/2021 is in gross violation of provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

5. It is submitted that for proceeding under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958, the disciplinary authority is required to be satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958, however, no such satisfaction has been recorded.

6. Submissions have been made that the indication made by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 1/3/2021 is an empty formality and on that count the orders impugned deserves to be set aside.

7. Further submissions have been made that the circumstances of the case did not warrant exercise of powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 as neither any charge sheet was issued nor any attempt was made to undergo the procedure prescribed under Rules 16, 17 & 18 of the Rules, 1958 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the circumstances, as indicated under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, 1958 existed for dispensing with the requirement of holding an inquiry, and on that count the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

8. On notice being issued, a reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia producing the preliminary inquiry report holding the petitioners guilty of the allegations. Whereafter, by way of an additional affidavit, further material was produced seeking to substantiate the preliminary inquiry report and the fact that the conduct of the petitioners has been such that they are not entitled to any relief from the Court.

9. During the course of hearing, as in the orders dated 1/3/2021, the disciplinary authority had indicated that the holding of regular inquiry against the petitioners under the Rules was not reasonably practicable & impossible, for which detailed reasons have been indicated in the file, learned counsel for the respondents, by order dated 27/4/2022, was directed to produce the requisite material on record. Pursuant thereto, learned AAG, on 11/5/2022 filed additional affidavit producing the note sheet/copy of the entire file of the department leading to passing of the order dated 1/3/2021.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions th