[2026:RJ-JP:7977]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3040/2024 Kamrudeen Khan S/o Shri Sumer Khan, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of VPO Kheda Mehmood District Alwar (Raj.) (Mobile

9256397627) ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Behind Nehru Palace, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Illyas Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

19/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.12.2023 issued by Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range Bharatpur, whereby, in exercise of powers under Rule 19(ii) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner along with other ancillary directions.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 30.01.1987 and was further promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 2006 and thereafter on the post of Assistant Sub-inspector in the year 2010 and lastly, he was further posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police however, one notice dated 02.10.2023 was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Deeg requiring the petitioner to show cause in respect of one photo published at social media allegedly reflecting that the petitioner was in objectionable position with a female. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the notice was duly replied by the petitioner on 03.10.2023 however, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on the basis of alleged preliminary enquiry, order dated 29.12.2023 has been passed in exercise of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 to inflict penalty of dismissal from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 19 carves out an exception to the general rule relating to conducting detailed enquiry under Rule 16 and such exceptional power cannot be exercised in mechanical manner. Learned counsel submits that no justified reasons have been assigned for passing order dated 29.12.2023 while dispensing with regular enquiry and adopting the exceptional procedure contemplated under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958. Learned counsel submits that arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents under Rule 19 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as he has been deprived of his right to put forward his defence against unfounded and baseless allegations mentioned in impugned order dated 29.12.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reena Rani Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 215 and judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bihari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2002 (1) WLC

752

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that order dated 29.12.2023 is a self explanatory order and bare perusal of the same would reveal that petitioner has committed heinous misconduct and has reflected inappropriate behaviour against a woman and his photo has also become viral on social media. Such conduct of the petitioner comes within the purview of moral turpitude and apparently tarnishes image of Police Department. The petitioner has misused his police powers, which is not otherwise expected from a Government official. He submits that prior to passing order dated 29.12.2023, the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearin