[2026:RJ-JP:2650]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16823/2015 Om Prakash S/o Shri Sohan Lal, aged 46 years, R/o Village & Post Kaliyasar, District Jhunjhunu, Ex-Constable No. 758, Reserve Police Line Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Home)

Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Police H.Q. Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Jaipur, Range Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

5. The Dy. Secretary to the Governor, Rajasthan, Governor Secretariat, Rajbhawan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Vishesh Sharma Advocate and Mr.

Shubham Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi Deputy Government Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2006 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the appellate authority whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. Further, the petitioner has challenged order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the reviewing authority whereby review petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The petitioner contends that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is excessive, harsh, and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

2. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was subjected to a regular departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct of remaining willfully absent for a period of around 719 days. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was duly served and the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses and to lead defence evidence. However, on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings proceeded ex-parte and upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned findings holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, imposed the impugned penalty. The appellate authority thereafter affirmed the said decision. Further, review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the reviewing authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty order is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of the principles of proportionality, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has imposed a harsh and excessive punishment wholly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet was never served upon the petitioner. The findings recorded in the enquiry are perverse and based on selective consideration of evidence, while material exculpatory evidence and the petitioner’s defence have been ignored without assigning cogent reasons. The enquiry proceedings suffer from procedural infirmities, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner and the punishment imposed would also shock the conscience of this Court. The appellate authority has mechanically affirmed the penalty without independent consideration, thereby rendering the decision-making process flawed and amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The reviewing authority has also mechanically affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority as also penalty order without independent consideration.

4. Pe