Illegal, Arbitrary And Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Constable Dismissed From Service Without Inquiry
Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the superintendent of police passed under Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”) for being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.Rule 19(ii) of the Rules provides that where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to follow...
Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the superintendent of police passed under Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”) for being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Rule 19(ii) of the Rules provides that where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the Rules, it may pass such orders as it deems fit dispensing with the requirement of conducting an inquiry.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena was hearing a petition filed by a constable who was dismissed from service without any inquiry. The allegations against the petitioner were that while talking to his higher authority in the department, he used indecent and objectionable language and also revealed his identity during that conversation. When the preliminary inquiry was pending against him, the superintendent of police dismissed him from services while dispensing with the inquiry, using special powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules observing that the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to conduct the inquiry.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the exercise of special powers under Rule 19(ii) was illegal and arbitrary because the identity of the one who used objectionable language over the phone could only be ascertained after making a proper inquiry. It was further contended that the powers under Rule 19(ii) were to be used in rarest of rare cases but in the present case, this was misused without there being any cogent reasons to do so which was a gross violation of natural justice.
The Court agreed with the arguments put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and observed that it failed to find any cogent material to opine that it was unreasonable and impracticable to hold the inquiry. The Court held that whether it was actually the petitioner or someone else who had that indecent conversation with the higher authority could only be ascertained after conducting a full-fledged inquiry.
The Court further observed that it was possible to conduct such an inquiry by collecting the voice sample of the petitioner and verifying the same by the forensic laboratory. However, no such material was put on record by the respondent to show how the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was reasonably impracticable to conduct the inquiry.
The Court mentioned that Rule 19(ii) was incorporated in view of proviso (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution which provides that no one shall be removed from service without an inquiry except where the authority empowered to dismiss was satisfied that for some reason it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. It said:
“The language of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 are to meet out the situation where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules. Meaning-thereby, when it becomes impracticable or in a sense that it is impossible to hold an inquiry then only the Disciplinary Authority can exercise the power given under Rule 19(ii)…The respondents in the reply to the reply has not disclosed any reason which led to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that why it is unreasonably practicable for him to hold and conclude the inquiry.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India & Anr. v Tulsiram Patel in which powers under Rule 19(ii) were discussed in detail. In the case, it was held that Rule 19(ii) did not talk about absolute impracticability but that holding an inquiry was not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It was further ruled that the disciplinary authority was not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly or out of ulterior motives or merely to avoid an inquiry where the department's case was weak.
In the background of this analysis, the Court held that the exercise of powers under Rule 19(ii) was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional because, firstly, the facts in the case were not such to dispense with regular inquiry, and secondly, no reasons were provided that led to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that regular inquiry was impracticable.
Accordingly, the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner was set aside for being in gross violation of principle of natural justice.
Title: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 152