Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.8) whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from his services on the ground of proving of all the three charges which were the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings.

2. The first charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the patrolling party, allegedly did not respond to the call made by another Head Constable who was the part of the patrolling party, and who informed about movement of suspects. Another Head Constable apprehended the suspect and handed him over. The second charge was that the petitioner, being handed over the possession of the cell phone of the suspect, did not seize the said cell phone under proper procedure and facilitated the suspect to converse with his gang members. The third charge was that the petitioner could not assess the body language of Vinod Swami who came to the police station while the suspects were detained in the police custody.

3. After following the procedure for enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 14.06.2021 (Annex.7) holding that the first two charges were not proved and the third charge was found to be proved.

4. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of enquiry report, issued a notice along with the enquiry report to the delinquent officer and the delinquent officer submitted the response by giving an explanation to such a report. The disciplinary authority, based on the explanation and considering the material on record, found that the first two charges were also proved differing with the findings of enquiry officer apart from confirming the third charge which was proved as per the enquiry report. Consequently, the order of dismissal has been passed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while deferring with the findings of enquiry report with regard to charge No. 1 and 2, the disciplinary authority has not followed the procedure under Rule 16(10A) of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’) whereunder, he is required to give his tentative findings by giving reasons for deferring with the enquiry officer’s findings and those tentative reasons and findings has to be communicated to the delinquent along with the enquiry report enabling him to submit an explanation to such a tentative findings and reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority for deferring with the view taken by the enquiry officer. Thereby, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the order dated 13.07.2021 of disciplinary authority required to be set aside on this ground.

6. It is also his submission that evidence regarding the third charge by the enquiry officer as agreed by the disciplinary authority was without any basis as the allegation was only that the petitioner could not assess the activities/body language of the Sarpanch who allegedly came to the police station while the suspects were in custody. According to him, such an assessment cannot be expected from the Head Constable and such allegations are vague and even if such allegations are proved, the punishment is disproportionate.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are serious charges against the petitioner and non-supply of such a tentative findings and reasons by the disciplinary authority deferring with enquiry officer’s report do not vitiate the conclusion arrived by the disciplinary authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision passed in Civil Appeal No. 7257/2022 (@SLP (Civil) No. 16535/2018) titled as the State of Punjab vs Nachhattar Singh(Dead) THR. LR. It is also his submission that the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to third charge as confirmed by the disciplinary authority are also based on the evidence on record.

According to him, when the Sarpanch visited the police station, there was an occasion for the constable to assess the