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.

ORDER :

(Ganesh Ram Meena, J.) :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tonk whereby he was dismissed from service with immediate effect.

2. The facts in brief of the matter are that the petitioner while working as a Constable under the Superintendent of Police, District Tonk was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.10.2021 in exercise of the powers given under Rule 13(1(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’) in view of contemplation of inquiry against him.

Vide order dated 17.02.2022 the petitioner was reinstated in service keeping inquiry proceedings pending against him.

3. A preliminary enquiry was ordered against the petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2021 which was handed over to the Circle Officer, Circle Malpura in view of the allegations of objectionable language used by him.

During the pendency of the preliminary enquiry the Superintendent of Police, District Tonk issued an order dated 08.04.2022 and imposed major penalty of dismissal from service. While passing the order dated 08.04.2022 the special powers given under rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 were exercised so as to dispense with the inquiry proceedings observing that the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for the reasons recorded in the file that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure as prescribed in the rules in regard to inquiry against him.

4. The main thrust of the averments made in the writ petition and the oral submission made by the counsel appearing or the petitioner is that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily exercised the special powers given under rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 so as to dispense with the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner before passing the order of penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has used objectionable language in conversation on Cell Phone with the higher authority of the department. Counsel further submitted that whether it was the petitioner who used objectionable language in conversation on Cell Phone with the higher authority or someone, can only be ascertained only after making a proper inquiry including taking the voice sample of the petitioner and send the same to the Forensic Laboratory for its test. Counsel also submitted that the respondents could have proceeded with the inquiry proceedings in a manner of procedure given under the Rules of 1958 and the powers given under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 are the special powers to be exercised in rarest of rare cases where the inquiry proceeding is impracticable but the respondents misused the powers without there being any cogent reason to do so. Counsel submitted that the order passed by the respondents is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply to the writ petition and counsel appearing for the respondents in oral submissions stated that the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law. Counsel also submitted that the respondents have rightly exercised the special powers given under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 against the petitioner in view of the allegations of using objectionable language by him during conversation on Cell Phone with the higher authority. Counsel further submitted that in the conversation the petitioner himself has disclosed his identity. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the reasons for invoking the powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 have been recorded in writing on the office file. Counsel for the State submitted that taking into consideration the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner is just and proper and does not call for any int