Judicial review in disciplinary matters allows interference where procedural fairness is lacking and reliance on preliminary findings without proper evidence violates natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a chain of administrative orders that have cumulatively resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner, Shri Shankar Ram, from his service as a Constable in the Police Department. The challenge is specifically directed against four sequential orders the original disciplinary order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure 6) imposing a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect; the Appellate Authority's remand order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure 7); the enhanced penalty order passed upon remand by the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure 9), imposing a punishement of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the final, determinative order dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure 12), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, in the suo motu exercise of review powers under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’) enhanced the penalty to dismissal from service. This Court is tasked with reviewing the legality, procedural correctness, proportionality of the punishement and desirability of these actions, particularly the Reviewing Authority's intervention that imposed the ultimate penalty.

2. The petitioner, Shri Shankar Ram, began his service as a Constable on 24.09.2008. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 04.05.2015 alleging serious misconduct during his training period in 2009–2010. The core allegation was that the petitioner associated with Shri Richpal Singh, a canteen contractor, fraudulently demanded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the contractor's son, Bhupendra Singh, promising to secure his appointment as a Constable in District Pali. It was alleged that an advance of Rs. 50,000/- was received, deposited partly in the petitioner's bank account and partly in his cousin's account.

3. Following the petitioner's unsatisfactory reply, a departmental enquiry was conducted, concluding with a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority initially passed the order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure 6), imposing the minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

4. However, upon the petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure 7), observed that the punishment was inadequate given the severity of the charge and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the penalty. In compliance with this remand, the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh order on 14.11.2017 (Annexure 9), enhancing the penalty to stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

5. Subsequently, the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, acting as the Reviewing Authority, suo motu invoked his powers under Rule 32, alleging that the Disciplinary Authority's previous orders were non-speaking and not based on reasonable grounds. Despite the petitioner’s submission of a reply to the review notice, the Reviewing Authority passed the final and operative order dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure 12), setting aside the previous penalties and imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service, which forms the immediate cause of action for the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of dismissal dated 15.05.2018, passed by the Reviewing Authority in exercise of suo motu powers under Rule 32 of the CCA Rules,