JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The instant Special Appeal (Writ) under Article 225 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, 1992 has been preferred against the order dated 25.02.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the inquiry report dated 10.10.2014, the order of dismissal dated 14.10.2014, as well as the appellate order dated 03.10.2016, and directed reinstatement of the respondent–writ petitioner with partial monetary benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent–writ petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Police and, at the relevant point of time, was posted at Bikaner. On 13.04.2013, during the conduct of the Physical Efficiency Test (race) forming part of the recruitment process for Constables at Swami Keshwanand Agriculture University, Bikaner, one Sukhdev was apprehended while impersonating the actual candidate Naresh by participating in the race in his place.

2.1. Upon detection of the impersonation, an FIR came to be registered against the said Naresh, the impersonator Sukhdev, and the respondent–writ petitioner, who is the uncle of the candidate Naresh, on allegations of connivance and misuse of official position.

2.2. The matter was initially subjected to a preliminary inquiry, wherein it was reported that on the date and time of the incident, the respondent–writ petitioner was not present at the recruitment venue and was stated to be discharging official duties in connection with another recruitment process at the Police Lines, Bikaner. A second preliminary inquiry was thereafter ordered. While the said inquiry also recorded that the respondent–writ petitioner was not physically present at the stadium during the race, it expressed an apprehension that he could have been in a position to influence the recruitment process owing to his official status.

2.3. Consequent thereto, the respondent–writ petitioner was placed under suspension, and departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

2.4. A charge-sheet dated 21.04.2014 was served upon the respondent–writ petitioner alleging:

(i) connivance in facilitating impersonation in the recruitment process to confer undue advantage upon his nephew, and

(ii) causing disrepute to the Police Department on account of publication of news reports relating to the incident.

2.5. A departmental inquiry was conducted, during which the respondent–writ petitioner denied the charges and participated in the proceedings with the assistance of a defence representative. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 10.10.2014, holding both the charges to be proved.

2.6. On the basis of the inquiry report, a show-cause notice proposing imposition of a major penalty was issued to the respondent–writ petitioner. After submission of his reply, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 14.10.2014, dismissing him from service.

2.7. The statutory departmental appeal preferred by the respondent–writ petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.10.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent– writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14073/2016, wherein the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 25.02.2025, allowed the writ petition, quashed the inquiry report, dismissal order, and appellate order, and directed reinstatement with partial back wages, giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has exceeded the well-settled limits of writ jurisdiction by virtually sitting as an appellate authority over a disciplinary inquiry and undertaking a complete re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is trite law that so long as there exists so