The power to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, is an extraordinary exception requiring the authority to record specific, objective reasons for why conducting an inquiry is not reasonably practicable; failure to do so renders the dismissal arbitrary and illegal.

Judgment

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 24.12.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police District Pali, whereby the petitioner has been subjected to the penalty of dismissal from service by invoking powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable vide order dated 25.07.2015 and posted at Police Line, Pali. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sarada on 02.10.2017 and subsequently to Police Station, Desuri on 05.08.2023. On 19.12.2025, an FIR bearing No. 0303/2025 was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Pali under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 127(2) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against certain named and unnamed persons. The allegations therein are vague and unsupported by any cogent evidence insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and he has been falsely implicated. It is contended that at the relevant time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was not present at the spot and was on official duty, as reflected in the General Diary dated 18.12.2025. The petitioner has also challenged the said FIR by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1010/2026, which is pending adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after registration of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.2025, and within five days, his services were terminated vide order dated 24.12.2025, without issuance of any show cause notice or charge-sheet and without conducting any departmental enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 is an exception to the general rule requiring a full-fledged enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, and therefore, the said power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. It is argued that the condition precedent for invoking Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 is the recording of satisfaction by the competent authority that it is not reasonably and practicable to hold such enquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and passed in a predetermined and mala fide manner, in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. It is settled principle that imposition of a major penalty such as dismissal from service requires strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, including issuance of charge-sheet and opportunity of hearing.

6. It is submitted that the impugned action is also violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been dismissed without being informed of the charges and without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of defence. The departmental enquiry is not an empty formality and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure renders the order unsustainable in law.

7. Learned counsel further contended that the impugned order does not disclose any application of mind, nor does it indicate as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The order is alleged to be based merely on surmises and conjectures, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory mandate.

8. It is further contended that the impugned order is completely silent on the reason