1. Challenge to dismissal order under exceptional procedure instead of regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 650
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Kamrudeen Khan S/o Shri Sumer Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3040 of 2024
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Illyas Khan
For the Respondent: Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Illyas Khan
For the Respondent: Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C.
The power to dispense with a regular departmental inquiry is an exceptional power that must be exercised based on objective facts recorded in writing. A formal inquiry cannot be bypassed on the basis of surmises or conjectures, as the right to defense is a constitutional and statutory requirement.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rules 16 and 19(ii) - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Dispensing with regular departmental enquiry - Power under Rule 19(ii) is an exception to the general rule of conducting an enquiry under Rule 16 and cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner - Disciplinary Authority must record justified reasons based on objective facts to show that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the prescribed procedure - Such satisfaction cannot be based on surmises, conjectures, or media reports (Paras 7, 8, 9).
(B) Right of defense - Constitutional and statutory right of an employee which cannot be taken away arbitrarily - Decision to dispense with enquiry cannot rest solely on the ipse dixit of the authority - Preliminary enquiry cannot be a substitute for a formal departmental enquiry if the latter is feasible (Paras 10, 12).
Facts of the case:
A government official was dismissed from service under Rule 19(ii) of the service rules following a preliminary inquiry into allegations of misconduct involving a photo shared on social media. The disciplinary authority dispensed with a regular enquiry, asserting that such a process would be an empty formality as witnesses might be influenced.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the decision to dispense with the regular enquiry was based on media reports and conjectures rather than objective criteria. It held that the disciplinary authority failed to provide justified reasons why a regular enquiry was not practicable, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the constitutional protections afforded to the employee.
Issues: Whether the dispensation of a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 19(ii) was based on objective satisfaction or merely on surmises and conjectures.
Ratio Decidendi: The exercise of exceptional powers to dispense with a formal inquiry must be supported by objective facts recorded in writing. The right to a regular enquiry is a fundamental protection; thus, a preliminary inquiry cannot justify the omission of a formal proceeding unless it is proven to be reasonably impracticable to conduct one.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Order of dismissal quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- delegated legislation
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- article 311 (Para 13)
-
fundamental rights
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: exceptional power under Rule 19 exercised mechanically without reasons. Respondents: conduct involved moral turpitude; witnesses won over. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Exceptional procedure under Rule 19(ii) requires justified, objective reasons; cannot be based on mere surmises and conjectures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Dispensation of regular enquiry under Rule 19 requires recorded satisfaction based on objective facts, not mere ipse dixit. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 )
5. Writ allowed; dismissal order quashed; petitioner treated as in service till superannuation; liberty to hold regular enquiry de novo. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. When can disciplinary authority dispense with regular departmental enquiry under Rule 19(ii)?
Only when it records justified, objective reasons showing that conducting regular enquiry is not reasonably practicable; mere suspicion is insufficient. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 )
7. What is the effect of quashing a dismissal order passed under Rule 19 on the right to hold a regular enquiry?
Quashing for non-compliance with regular procedure does not bar the department from initiating a fresh regular enquiry in accordance with law. (Para 16 )
8. Can a preliminary enquiry substitute for a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16?
No; if a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, there is no justification to dispense with a formal regular enquiry without complying with natural justice. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.12.2023 issued by Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range Bharatpur, whereby, in exercise of powers under Rule 19 (ii) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner along with other ancillary directions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 30.01.1987 and was further promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 2006 and thereafter on the post of Assistant Sub-inspector in the year 2010 and lastly, he was further posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police however, one notice dated 02.10.2023 was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Deeg requiring the petitioner to show cause in respect of one photo published at social media allegedly reflecting that the petitioner was in objectionable position with a female. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the notice was duly replied by the petitioner on 03.10.2023 however, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on the basis of alleged preliminary enquiry, order dated 29.12.2023 has been passed in exercise of Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 to inflict penalty of dismissal from service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 19 carves out an exception to the general rule relating to conducting detailed enquiry under Rule 16 and such exceptional power cannot be exercised in mechanical manner. Learned counsel submits that no justified reasons have been assigned for passing order dated 29.12.2023 while dispensing with regular enquiry and adopting the exceptional procedure contemplated under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submits that arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents under Rule 19 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as he has been deprived of his right to put forward his defence against unfounded and baseless allegations mentioned in impugned order dated 29.12.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reena Rani Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 215 and judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bihari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2002 (1) WLC 752
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that order dated 29.12.2023 is a self explanatory order and bare perusal of the same would reveal that petitioner has committed heinous misconduct and has reflected inappropriate behaviour against a woman and his photo has also become viral on social media. Such conduct of the petitioner comes within the purview of moral turpitude and apparently tarnishes image of Police Department. The petitioner has misused his police powers, which is not otherwise expected from a Government official. He submits that prior to passing order dated 29.12.2023, the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing by way of notice dated 02.10.2023 and preliminary enquiry was conducted, which resulted in conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of committing indecent offence against a woman and lowering down the image of the Department. Under these circumstances, this was a fit case for exempting regular enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.
5. Learned counsel emphasized that since, the petitioner by using his influence has won over the relevant witnesses, therefore, conducting a regular enquiry was not possible and if conducted, would have resulted in empty formality yielding no fruitful reason.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is settled proposition of law that
