The disciplinary authority must provide valid reasons for invoking immediate dismissal under rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958, and cannot bypass the inquiry process without justification.

Order :

1. The present writ petition impugns the order dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed with immediate effect from services while invoking the provisions of rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’). The order of Appellate Authority dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure-4) affirming the said order dated 07.09.2020 is also under challenge.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has been dismissed from service, the matter was finally heard.

3. Apprising the Court about the needful facts, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a Constable and the order impugned has been passed on the basis of preliminary inquiry dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure-1), in which it has been reported that the petitioner was escorting a vehicle containing narcotic substance, which was intercepted and seized by the police resulting in registration of FIR No.101/2020 against the accused persons.

4. Mr. Vivek Firoda, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have illegally invoked rule 19 of the Rules of1958 and dismissed the petitioner from services.

5. Learned counsel submitted that rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 can be invoked only when the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules. He argued that the petitioner was serving as Constable and there was no reason or justification with the respondents to dispense with the disciplinary inquiry envisaged under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958.

6. It was highlighted that so far as FIR No.101/2020 is concerned, the petitioner has not even been charge-sheeted.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that the petitioner being a Constable in the Police Force, which is entrusted with a responsibility/duty to curb the menace of increasing use and trade of narcotic substance had connived with the persons dealing with such substance and was found escorting the vehicle carrying contraband substance. He argued that when such facts have come to the notice of the respondents, in order to take quick and effective action, the disciplinary authority invoked the provisions of rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petitioner from services so as to send strong message in the department.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents was, however, not in a position to satisfy the Court as to why it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under law and dispense with the inquiry.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is, that he was escorting the vehicle, which was carrying contraband substance, whereas, the same is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, even the investigating officer has not charge-sheeted the petitioner. He argued that the impugned order is a colourable exercise of power.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 14.03.2023 rendered by this Court in the case of Badri Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14681/2019)

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The petitioner has been dismissed from service while invoking rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958, which is pari-materia to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The reasons recorded in the order impugned are that the disciplinary inquiry under rules 16