Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Hanuman Ram (Deceased) S/o Shri Kishana Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5574 of 2020
Decided on : 03-10-2023
Rule 19 (ii) - Termination of Service - Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 - The legal issue involved in this petition is whether powers contained under Rule 19 (ii) of Rules, 1958 could have been invoked in a hurry by the Disciplinary Authority for summary dismissal of the deceased petitioner for want of reasons for dispensing with an enquiry. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 19 (ii) and emphasized the importance of recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry while removing the person from service. The court referred to various judgments and highlighted the requirement of recording satisfaction in writing as to the reason for the impracticability of holding an enquiry. The court concluded that no worthy reasons were recorded for dispensing with the enquiry against the petitioner, and the impugned order passed by the respondent was quashed and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable, was removed from service without following the provisions and without conducting any enquiry under Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner's voice was recognized in an audio clip demanding money for releasing a vehicle carrying liquor and 'Doda Post', which led to the termination of his services. The respondent invoked Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 to dispense with the enquiry and remove the petitioner from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not record worthy reasons for dispensing with the enquiry against the petitioner, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. As the petitioner had passed away during the pendency of the petition, no further direction regarding reinstatement or further enquiry could be given. The court declared the removal order of the petitioner as invalid and directed the respondent to pay arrears of salary and terminal benefits to the petitioner's legal representatives.
Issues: The main issue was whether the powers contained under Rule 19 (ii) of Rules, 1958 could have been invoked in a hurry by the Disciplinary Authority for summary dismissal of the deceased petitioner for want of reasons for dispensing with an enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry while removing a person from service, as required by Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. It highlighted the need for the authority to state its reason in writing for dispensing with a disciplinary enquiry, and the high threshold to prove dispensation of due process and compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 was quashed and set aside. The court declared the removal order of the petitioner as invalid and directed the respondent to pay the arrears of the petitioner's salary from the date of termination till death, along with all terminal benefits to his legal representatives.
ORDER :
1. Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
Submissions by the petitioner:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the provisions and without conducting any enquiry under Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’) the petitioner has been removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for an alleged incident which occurred on 04.02.2020 of which an audio clip stood viral on social media and solely on the basis of said audio clip the action has been taken by the respondent. Counsel submits that the respondent has invoked the powers contained under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 but no reasons for satisfaction have been recorded, that why it was not reasonably practicable to follow procedure prescribed under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that for the same incident one Head Constable Prasann Kathath was placed under suspension and thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. However, in the case of petitioner, respondent had subjected him to discrimination and the order impugned was passed against him. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned order the respondent have recorded the fact that the voice of the petitioner was tested by supplying the audio clip to Bajrang Singh, Om Prakash and Kailash Kumar. Counsel submits that the said Bajrang Singh was not present at the spot when the alleged incident has occurred rather he was undergoing some training on the fateful day and counsel submits that under these circumstances order impugned passed by the respondent is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
1. Bhinya Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5669/2021) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Bhinya Ram (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.848/2022).
2. Behari Lal Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1084/1996) reported in 2002 (1) WLC 752.
3. Badri Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14681/2019).
3. Counsel submits that a discretion can not be exercised in an arbitrary manner, when the respondent has exercised their discretion for holding an enquiry against similarly situated person Prasann Kathath then it was necessary for the respondent to follow the same process in the case of the petitioner also. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13280/2019). Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.
Submissions by the respondent:
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was found demanding lakhs of rupees for releasing the vehicle carrying liquor and doda post. Counsel submits that the aforesaid incident was recorded in an audio clip and the same stood viral on social media which has tarnished the image of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry while removing a person from service, as mandated by Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules....
Dismissal of a civil servant without proper inquiry violates constitutional safeguards and is arbitrary; procedural requirements must be strictly followed.
The court emphasized that dismissal without a proper inquiry violates principles of natural justice and requires valid justification under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear reasons and objective criteria when dispensing with a departmental enquiry under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Protection F....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of concrete and appropriate reasons for dispensing with an inquiry before dismissing a government servant, as mandated by Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Se....
High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
