[2026:RJ-JP:269]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2007 Mohan Singh S/o Shri Shyam Lal, aged about 31 years, R/o Village and Post Mudhera Police Station, Uchain District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through Inspector General of Police, Range-I, Police Headquarters, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5616/2007 Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Swadeva Ram, aged 49 years, Resident of Village Kalwad, District Jaipur (Rural) Ex. Head Constable No.143, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I, Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 822/2012 Hari Singh S/o Shri Bacchu Singh, aged about 31 years R/o Village Mai Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Ex-Constable no 7291)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Inspector General of Police Jaipur Range (1^st) Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent of Police, HQ, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, Adv. &

Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Adv.

Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Adv.

with Mr. Ashish Kabra, Adv. Mr. Hemraj Rodiya, Adv. for Mr. D. C. Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC with Mr. Manvendra Singh Fouzdar, Adv.

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 th