Disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned orders to ensure procedural fairness; otherwise, penalties may be deemed arbitrary and unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the penalty order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South), Jaipur, (for short ‘the Disciplinary Authority’) whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of ‘Censure’, the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, (for short ‘the Appellate Authority’) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner against the order of penalty of ‘Censure’ was dismissed and so also the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Joint Secretary (Appeal) Government of Rajasthan, Department of Home, Jaipur, (for short ‘the Reviewing Authority’) whereby the review petition assailing the penalty order and order of Appellate Authority, was also dismissed.

2. The petitioner has also agitated an issue that promotion of the petitioner on account of penalty of ‘Censure’, cannot be withheld and withholding of promotion on such a ground is illegal and arbitrary.

3. Facts as borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner while posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Chaksu, a criminal case i.e. F.I.R. No. 300/2012 was registered at Police Station Chaksu for offences under Sections 143 , 341, 323 & 452 of IPC and the investigation of the same was assigned to one Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable No. 582. During the investigation process, the concerned Head Constable who was assigned the investigation was trapped by the Anti-Corruption Bureau outside the premises of the Police Station while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charges dated 01.09.2012 with one of the charge that the investigation of the criminal case No. 300/2012 was handed over to Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable who was not competent to make investigation for non-bailable offences and other charge was that there was supervisory negligence of the petitioner in regard to investigation of the criminal case No. 300/2012 and because of his supervisory negligence the Police Personnel who was making investigation, demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.

5. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the memorandum of charges. As regards the charge No. 1, the petitioner in the explanation stated that at the time when the Criminal Case No. 300/2012 was registered at Police Station, Chaksu, he was out of Police Station because of some official work and the Duty Officer, Mr. Net Ram, Sub-Inspector who was holding the charge at the relevant point of time, assigned the investigation of the Criminal Case No. 300/2012 to one Mr. Ramchandra, Head Constable and therefore petitioner cannot be held guilty for assigning the investigation to an incompetent person. It was also stated that as per the orders and instructions of the State Government, the petitioner was not having the authority to transfer the investigation from one Officer to other and has also made reference of the Circular and the orders issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan.

6. As regards the charge No. 2 is concerned, the petitioner has denied the negligence. In regard to supervision of the investigation of Criminal Case No. 300/2012, it was stated by the petitioner that he instructed the concerned Investigation Officer time to