[2026:RJ-JP:794]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14107/2009 Smt Vinod Wife of Shri Ranveer Singh, aged about 37 years, resident of Chainpura, Post Ladusar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu at present Posted as Constable No.183, office of Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General of Police, Jaipur Range IInd, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shailender Balwada, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Deputy Government Counsel with Mr. Munendra Singh Fouzdar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

09/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2005 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 25.04.2006 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 17.06.2009 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. A charge-sheet under Rule 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') and amended Rules, 1983 was duly served, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to submit a reply, to participate in the enquiry proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, and to lead defence evidence. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned findings holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s reply, 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. 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 shocks 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. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly untenable, as the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules and in full compliance with t