[2025:RJ-JP:44306]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12035/2009

1. Smt. Asha Devi W/o Late Shri Vijendra Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Ranpura, Tehsil Mandarayal, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

2. Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Vijendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village And Post Ranpura, Tehsil Mandarayal, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Inspector General of Police, RAC II, Office of Additional Director General of Police, Armed Battalions, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Commandant, 8th Battalion, RAC (IR) Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Bhaskar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, A.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

04/11/2025 :

By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order dt.01.10.2008 passed by the respondent No.3/Commandant, 8th Battalion, RAC (IR) Delhi [For short 'the Disciplinary Authority'] whereby he was dismissed from service after exercising the powers under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958).

The petitioner has also assailed the order dt.12.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.2/Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur (for short 'the Appellate Authority), whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid punishment order dt.01.10.2008 was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The petitioner was appointed to the permanent &

substantive post of Constable in the 6th Battalion, RAC Dholpur on 05.08.1992. On 01.09.1994, he was transferred & posted in the 8th Battalion RAC Ganjipur Delhi-96. The petitioner was issued a charge- sheet on 13.11.2007 alleging two charges against him. He filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, stating that based on the evidence of the Additional Commander & Constable - Shri Anand Singh, as well as, his medical examination and the statement of the Doctor, Charge No.1 had not been proven against him. The Inquiry Officer, however, found the charges to be proved, and based on that finding, the disciplinary authority passed punishment order dt. 01.10.2008 while dismissing the services of the petitioner. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal against the punishment order dt.01.10.2008, which was dismissed by the ld. Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence showing that the petitioner consumed liquor during duty hours, and further the statement of the employee from whom charges originated has not been recorded. Thus, the Charge No.1 has not been proven at all against the petitioner. According to the statement of the Medical Officer, the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor. The Inquiry Officer & the disciplinary authority failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and wrongly concluded that the charges were proved, thereby, imposing punishment upon him. Counsel further submits that the ld. Appellate Authority, without considering the fact that the delay in filing the appeal occurred under the bona-fide circumstances as the medical condition of the petitioner was not well, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Relying upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (3) WLC (Raj.) 235, and as per Note (ii) of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958, learned counsel contends that the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority without any jurisdiction. Based on the evidence & material available in the inquiry record, the charges have not been proved against the petitioner. Counsel further contends that it is an established precedent that in the circumstances where an employee co