1. Police employees dismissed from service after two accused escaped from custody, challenged penalty order under Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 5350
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anand Sharma, J
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2007 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5616/2007 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 822/2012
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shobhit Tiwari, Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Ashish Kabra, Hemraj Rodiya, D. C. Gupta
For the Respondents: Somitra Chaturvedi, Manvendra Singh Fouzdar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shobhit Tiwari, Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Ashish Kabra, Hemraj Rodiya, D. C. Gupta
For the Respondents: Somitra Chaturvedi, Manvendra Singh Fouzdar
Dispensation of a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958, requires subjective satisfaction based on objective criteria; the nature of the crime committed by an escaped prisoner is not a valid ground to deny a delinquent employee their right to a regular enquiry.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 19 and Rule 30 - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Dismissal from service - Dispensation of regular enquiry - The power to dispense with a regular enquiry under Rule 19(2) must be based on subjective satisfaction derived from objective criteria. Merely citing the nature of the offence committed by an accused who escaped from custody is neither reasonable nor justifiable ground to dispense with a regular enquiry. A delinquent employee has a minimal right to face a regular enquiry to put forward their defence regardless of the heinousness of the misconduct (Paras 8, 9).
(B) Appellate Authority - Duty to pass speaking order - Under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, the Appellate Authority is obligated to consider every relevant ground raised by the delinquent and pass a speaking order. A mechanical dismissal of appeals without addressing specific grounds constitutes a failure of judicial/administrative duty (Paras 12, 19).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, serving as Head Constable/Constables, were dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The dismissal was based on a preliminary enquiry following an incident where two accused persons escaped from their custody while being taken to a court in Gurgaon, Haryana. The department dispensed with a regular enquiry on the grounds that the accused were facing charges for a grave offence (loot), making a regular enquiry unfeasible. The petitioners challenged the penalty order and the subsequent dismissal of their appeals by the Appellate Authority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for dispensing with the regular enquiry were not justifiable as the nature of the crime committed by the prisoners cannot be the determining factor for exercising powers under Rule 19. The penalty order was based on surmises and conjectures, and the Appellate Authority failed to provide a speaking order considering the merits of the appeals.
Issues: Whether the dispensation of a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 was legally sustainable based on the nature of the offence committed by the absconded prisoners, and whether the Appellate Authority's order was in compliance with Rule 30.
Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional right to be heard and to defend oneself in a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily. Subjective satisfaction for dispensing with an enquiry must be backed by independent material and objective criteria; reliance on a preliminary enquiry alone to impose the harshest penalty without a regular trial is against the canons of fair play and justice.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside; petitioners entitled to reinstatement with notional benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences involving property
- loot (Para 8)
-
offences involving property
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued dismissal without regular inquiry violated natural justice; respondent contended escape of accused justified dispensing with regular inquiry under Rule 19. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Reasons for dispensing with regular inquiry were neither reasonable nor justifiable; order based on surmises and conjectures; petitioner had right to defend in regular inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Disciplinary authority cannot dispense with regular inquiry under Rule 19 based on mere gravity of offence; minimal right to face regular inquiry cannot be arbitrarily denied. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; dismissal order and appellate order quashed and set aside; petitioners reinstated with notional benefits; regular inquiry not precluded. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. What are the conditions for dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958?
Dispensing with regular inquiry requires subjective satisfaction based on objective criteria; mere gravity of offence or possibility of witness intimidation is insufficient. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Can an order of dismissal based solely on a preliminary inquiry without a regular departmental inquiry be sustained?
No. A preliminary inquiry cannot replace a formal departmental inquiry; such dismissal violates principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
8. What is the scope of appellate review under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958?
The appellate authority must consider each relevant ground raised by the delinquent and pass a reasoned speaking order; mechanical rejection is impermissible. (Para 11 , 12 )
9. Is the right to a regular departmental inquiry a fundamental minimum right regardless of the gravity of alleged misconduct?
Yes. Even if alleged misconduct is heinous, the delinquent constitutional right to defend in a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with lightly or arbitrarily. (Para 9 , 11 )
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
07/01/2026
1. Matter is listed on an application No.1/2025 for early listing and final disposal of the writ petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
2. Facts, impugned order and cause of action in all the above writ petitions are identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
3. The petitioners, who were substantive employees of respondent-Police Department and holding the post of Head Constable/Constable have assailed the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, whereby in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioners. They have also challenged the order dated 12.06.2007, whereby their appeals have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners were posted at the relevant time at Police Commissionerate, Jaipur City and were assigned the responsibility of taking two accused to Gurgaon, Haryana for their appearance before the Court. The allegation against the petitioners was that when they were taking the accused persons Jayveer and Vikas to the Court at Gurgaon, they escaped from their custody. Thereafter, the preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioners and only on the basis of alleged report of preliminary enquiry and without conducting any regular enquiry under the provisions of Rules of 1958, powers under Rule 19 have been arbitrarily exercised without there being any such exigency to dispense with regular enquiry and thus, without properly affording opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioners have been saddled with harshest penalty of dismissal from service. Although, they approached the Appellate Authority with the contention that the penalty order is apparently against the provisions of Rules 1958 as well as Article 311 of Constitution of India, yet the Appellate Authority has also mechanically dismissed the appeals without properly considering the grounds of appeals. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the accused, who escaped from custody of the petitioners have been re-arrested and are facing trial. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing the impugned order and reinstatement of the petitioners along with consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2442/2022 (Naresh Pal Devaniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.).
6. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the misconduct committed by the petitioners was so grave that two accused persons, who were facing the charges of committing heinous offence, have been assisted by the petitioners in escaping from the custody, which has put the reputation of Police Department at stake. It is submitted that looking to the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the petitioners should have been more vigilant and rather on account of their collusion and connivance, the accused persons escaped from their custody, therefore, in view of the report of the preliminary enquiry, there was no requirement to conduct the regular enquiry and hence, the competent authority has taken a right decision to dispense with the regular enquiry and to take action under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958.
7. Heard and considered.
8. It is not disputed in the instant case that prior to passing impugned order, preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the respondent-Department and the reasons which have been assigned in the penalty order dated 18.12.2006 are that as
