Dismissal of employees without a proper disciplinary enquiry is unsustainable unless justified with recorded reasons, as mandated by Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules.

ORDER :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of similar impugned orders, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 20.01.2025, whereby, the services of the petitioners have been dismissed by the respondent-Department.

4. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4379/2025 are taken into consideration while disposing of the controversy involved in the present cases. Briefly noted the facts involved are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Teacher Grade-II, was involved in an act of misconduct in pursuance of which he was suspended vide order dated 18.01.2025. The respondents, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and conducting a summary/preliminary enquiry in the matter at their own level, have dismissed the petitioner from his services vide order dated 20.01.2025. The said order was passed while invoking the provisions available under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958). Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 20.01.2025 shows that no reasons have been assigned therein for dispensing with the enquiry in the cases of the petitioners. He submits that the order dated 20.01.2025 is in complete violation of the mandate of Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. He further submits that in the order impugned, nothing has been stated to show as to why holding an enquiry against the petitioners in the present incidence was not reasonably practicable. Thus, the order dated 20.01.2025 is, on the face of it, unsustainable. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the order impugned dated 20.01.2025 may be quashed and set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were involved in a totally immoral act within the School premises having a negative impact upon the students of the school. He submits that if the petitioners, who are teachers and supposed to be the role models and the guiding light for the students, are allowed to continue on the said post even when they are involved in an immoral act, then it will leave a very negative and bad impact on the younger generations i.e. the students, who are studying in the School. He also submits that the order dated 20.01.2025 has been passed while keeping in mind the larger interest of the young students and the Institution as well. Learned government counsel further submits that retaining the petitioners on the post of teachers is neither in the larger interest nor in public good. However, he very fairly submits that the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 does not inscribe any reasons for dispensing with the disciplinary enquiry in the cases of the petitioners.At this juncture, learned Counsel submits that the respondents may be given liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law, including holding of a proper disciplinary enquiry in a time bound manner.

7. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant records of the case including the order impugned dated 20.01.2025.

8. The petitioners were allegedly involved in an immoral act in the School premises and the respondents have proceeded them by dismissing their services while not holding a regular disciplinary enquiry. The respondents have come to the conclusion that holding of the enquiry against the petitioners is not reasonably practicable and, therefore, they have resorted to pass the order dated 20.01.2025 by invoking Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. A bare perusal of the order dated 20.01.2025 clearly shows that there are no reasons