[2026:RJ-JP:1070]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13813/2008 Uma Pareek w/o. Shro Prem Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o E-

58, RPA, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

4. Shri M.K. Govil, Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Jaipur. 5. Shri Praveen Sharma, Additional Superintendent of Police (IB)

Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Dhand Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi Deputy Government Counsel with Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments :: 12.01.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved :: 12.01.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment Date of pronouncement :: 19.01.2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging preliminary enquiry report dated 26.12.2007, charge- sheet dated 24.03.2008, enquiry report dated 02.08.2008 and punishment order dated 01.09.2008 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, as also challenged Appellate Authority's order dated 26.10.2010 and Reviewing Authority's order dated 12.06.2012. The petitioner has further prayed for direction of reinstatement with all service benefits.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 08.08.1990 and she was promoted to the post of Head Constable against the vacancy year 2002 after passing the qualifying examination. During service, the petitioner was sanctioned casual leave from 12.10.2007 to 21.10.2007 and had also applied in advance on 11.10.2007 for privilege leave from 30.10.2007 to 08.11.2007, followed by Deepawali holidays. After availing casual leave, she allegedly fell seriously ill on 22.10.2007 and accordingly, informed the Office Superintendent and Duty Officer telephonically. Medical certificates relating to the relevant period were later submitted by her. However, ignoring the petitioner’s illness and leave application, the petitioner was treated as absent without information, which led to her suspension on 22.11.2007 under contemplation of departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958').

3. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered on 27.11.2007 and conducted by an officer of CID (IB), in quite cursory manner without disclosing charges or supplying documents. The Enquiry Officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry, where he examined only neighbours and travelled beyond the scope of enquiry by referring to earlier periods of absence already adjudicated and submitted a preliminary enquiry report dated 26.12.2007 recommending departmental action.

4. Based on the preliminary enquiry report, a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2008 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served, containing four charges: (i) willful absence from 22.10.2007, (ii) past instances of prolonged absence for which punishments had earlier been imposed, (iii) habitual absenteeism, and (iv) misbehaviour with neighbours in police quarters bringing disrepute to the department.

5. The petitioner asserts that the charge-sheet was served without furnishing copies of relied upon documents. Despite repeated applications dated 15.04.2008 and 30.04.2008, no documents were supplied and without even waiting for reply to the charge sheet, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The suspension was later revoked on 31.05.2008 and the petitioner was posted in CID (IB), Jaipur.

6. It is stated that prior to and during the enquiry, the petitioner sought change of the Enquiry Officer alleging bias and personal vendetta, but her representations to the Disciplinary Authority, Inspector General and hi