Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 6675

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Inderjeet Singh, Ravi Chirania, JJ
RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI ROHITASHAV GURJAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 612/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 613/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 614/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 615/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 616/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 617/2021 | D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 618/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar
For the Respondents: Bhuwnesh Sharma, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Siddharth Sharma, Shivam Chauhan

The central legal principle is that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court's power of judicial review is limited; it can only interfere on grounds of violation of natural justice, no evidence, or perversity, and not on the ground of differential treatment of co-delinquents.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 30A - Departmental Appeal - Scope of Appellate Authority - The Appellate Authority is required to independently apply its mind and record reasons for its decision; it cannot simply reproduce the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. (Paras 9.2, 9.3)

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Judicial Review - Scope in Disciplinary Matters - The High Court cannot act as an appellate authority and re-appreciate evidence; it can only interfere on limited grounds, such as violation of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, perversity, or imposition of a punishment that shocks the conscience of the court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 18, 19)

(C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Doctrine of Equality - The doctrine of equality cannot be invoked to set aside a punishment on the ground that co-delinquents were exonerated, as each individual's role must be considered in light of their duties. (Paras 12.3, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, who were police personnel, were charged with dereliction of duty in connection with an incident where a criminal in custody was assisted by a commando. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals of the present appellants, but allowed the appeals of three similarly situated colleagues, exonerating them. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding that there were no grounds for judicial interference.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that it was not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority, as there was no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity. The court noted that the order exonerating the other employees was not part of the record and that the appellants had to stand on their own legs, as the doctrine of equality does not apply in such a context.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellate Authority erred by applying different yardsticks for similarly situated employees, and whether the learned Single Judge failed to consider this discrimination while dismissing the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that judicial review in disciplinary matters is very limited and that interference is not warranted unless there is a violation of natural justice or the punishment is grossly disproportionate. The court held that the appellants cannot claim relief based on the exoneration of other co-delinquents, as the doctrine of negative equality does not apply. Result : D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 612/2021 to 618/2021 are dismissed, and the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Appellate Authority are affirmed. No order as to costs.

(B) Service law - disciplinary proceedings - scope of judicial review - High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and cannot substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority.

(C) Service law - disciplinary proceedings - doctrine of equality - cannot be invoked to set aside a punishment on the ground that co-delinquents were exonerated, unless the role and duties of each individual are identical and the discrimination is arbitrary.

1. These writ petitions are decided by this common order, as the facts and issues involved in these writ petitions are common. For convenience, the facts are taken from Special Appeal Writ No.

612/2021.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners' for short) whereby they have challenged the judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which their writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5600/2021, 5573/2021, 5576/2021, 5601/2021, 5602/2021, 5603/2021, 5604/2021, 5605/2021, 5606/2021 & 5608/2021 were dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not considered the preliminary report and the other evidence on record, which is sufficient to show that, in the entire incident, none of the petitioners herein were responsible in any manner and further there was no intentional negligence or dereliction of duties on their part. Learned counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer also did not consider the complete facts and found the charges proved and by considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority punished them with the stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect as mentioned in the punishment order dated 04.04.2018.

4. Learned counsel submitted that against the punishment order dated 04.04.2018, the petitioners filed the Departmental appeal under Rule 30A of the CCA Rules, 1958 along-with other similarly situated persons namely Anil Kumar Pandey, Phool Chand & Dharmesh Dayma etc. The charges against all the delinquent employees including the petitioners herein were almost same, in respect of the same incident, the Enquiry Officer also found the charges to be proved against all and passed the order of punishment, however, the Appellate Authority dismissed the departmental appeals filed by the petitioners herein and the punishment order was maintained. However, in the case of the other similarly situated persons namely Anil Kumar Pandey, Dharmesh Dayma & Shambu Singh, different yardsticks were followed and their appeals were allowed and were exonerated from all the charges.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that except the Commando Shakti Singh, not before the Court, all police persons who were inside the police van were carrying the criminal Anand Pal Singh, had no idea about his (Commando Shakti Singh's) involvement with the criminal in van and his associated groups. Despite seriousness of the charges as levelled against all the persons, the specific findings of the Enquiry Officer and the after consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the punishment order, the Appellate Authority exonerated the above three persons while maintaining the punishment order in respect of all the petitioners herein.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with by the Appellant Authority until and unless there are reasons to do so and the same are required to be recorded while quashing the punishment order. The complete findings as recorded by the Appellate Authority are illegal, arbitrary and a classic case of applying different yardsticks in the case of employees having the same charges in respect of the same incident.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that against the order of the Appellant Authority of dismissing the departmental appeal, the petitioners filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, which were dismissed in limine by order dated 18.05.2021. The learned Single Judge by considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. P. Gunasekaran¹ and Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali², dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the above settled law does not permit interference in the departmental proceedings and that the Courts cannot substitute a punishment unless it shocks

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 6675

The central legal principle is that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court's power of judicial review is limited; it can only interfere on grounds of violation of natural justice, no evidence, or perversity, and not on the ground of differential treatment of co-delinquents.

Cases Referred (7)