Disciplinary action requires substantial evidence; dismissal based on mere familial ties without proof is unjust.

Order :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved of the order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure-12) passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereby he has been dismissed from services so also the order dated 03.10.2016, whereby the appeal filed thereagainst has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case are shocking to say the least – they unravel how the respondents have proceeded against the petitioner, practically in absence of any evidence or material. Simply because, he happened to be uncle of one Naresh on whose behalf another person (Sukhdev) was caught participating in the race held for the recruitment of constable.

3. On fateful day i.e. 13.04.2013, race being integral part of the recruitment process was being conducted at Swami Keshwanand Agriculture University Stadium, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) during which pursuant to a complaint, the respondents came to know that a person wearing chest No.407 was impostering the actual candidate and taking part in the race. Said impostor – Sukhdev was later on intercepted and on inquiry, it was revealed that he was doing so in place of Naresh.

4. An FIR came to be registered against said Naresh while also implicating the petitioner and the impostor.

5. The respondents got preliminary enquiry conducted firstly by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who submitted a report dated 17.09.2013 and gave a clean chit to the petitioner while recording that on 13.04.2013, the petitioner was not present on the track of the University and was rather engaged discharging his duties in other recruitment (Jail Prahri) at Police Lines.

6. The respondents were however, not satisfied with the report and another preliminary inquiry was ordered. This time a report dated 11.11.2013 came to be furnished by another Deputy Superintendent of Police, who also found the petitioner to be absent in or around the stadium. He however, expressed an apprehension that the petitioner was in a position to help the candidate (Naresh). A reproduction of the extract of the report will not be out place:-

^^fnukad 13-4-13 dks ?kVuk ds le; Jh jktkjke gSM dkfu 18 dh Lokeh ds’kokuUn d`f"k fo’ofo|ky; ds LVsfM;e esa f}rh; pj.k ihbZVh ¼nkSM+½ Vªsd ij ekStwnxh ugha ikbZ xbZA Jh jktkjke gSM dkfu 18 ?kVuk ds le; chdkusj esa tsy izgfj;kas dh HkrhZ ijh{kk esa tkCrs dh M~;wVh yxkus gsrq iqfyl ykbZu esa ekStwn Fks tks ?kVuk ds ckn mPpkf/kdkfj;kas ds }kjk cqykus ij LVsfM;e ij x;sA izkFkfed tkap ls Jh jktkjke gSM dkfu 18 dk ?kVuk esa izR;{k :i ls ljhd gksuk ugha ik;k x;k] fdraq dfFkr vkjksih ujs’k fc’uksbZ jktkjke gSMdkfu dk Hkrhtk gS rFkk lq[knso dkfu- Lotkfr; cU/kq gS] D;kasfd jktkjke gSMdkfu iqfyl ykbZu esa goynkj estj ds in ij bl ?kVukdze ds nkSjku inLFkkfir Fkk blfy, ifjfLFkfrtu lk{; tks curs gS] og mldh Hkwfedk dks lafnX/k cukrs gSa] vizR;{k:i ls ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd jktkjke gSMdkfu- vius in ds izHkko ls dfFkr vkjksihx.kksa dh enn djus dh fLFkfr jgh gSA vr% leLr tkap ls ,d rks jktkjke gSMdkfu bl ?kVuk ds izdj.k esa fxj¶rkj gqvk gS rFkk nwljk ;g ekeyk jktkjke gSMdkfu- ds fo:) ifjfLFkfrtu; O;ogkj ls Hkh vkaf’kd :i ls izekf.kr gSA^^

7. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension and later on disciplinary proceedings were launched against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1958’).

8. A charge-sheet with memorandum of charges dated 21.04.2014 came to be served upon the petitioner, which levelled two allegations against him, first, related to the petitioner’s alleged involvement in connivance with a view to give undue advantage to his nephew – Naresh along with the impostor namely, Sukhdev who took part in the race while the second charge related to dent in the image of the department due to publication of such news in the newspapers.

9. An inquiry officer was appointed, before whom petitioner filed his representation/reply denying all the allegations and charges; the petitioner was a