Rajasthan HC Directs Reinstatement Of Constable 24 Yrs After Dismissal, Rules Different Punishment To Co-Delinquents Violates Article 14

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena was hearing a petition filed against dismissal order passed Superintendent of Police and the order that dismissed the review petition. The petitioner was a constable against whom a criminal case was registered under Section 301 and 201, IPC, along with 4 other constables. One of these co-accused was acquitted by the trial court while the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and the high court, and was later acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of the petitioner was not on account of the criminal case but on the charge of willful absence from duty. The petitioner was absent from duty to avoid the arrest in the criminal case for about 105 days. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the co-accused in the case was also dismissed on account of the same charge, however, he was later reinstated with a decreased penalty of withholding two annual increments. Hence, the counsel contended that in view of identical charge of willful absence of both the petitioner and the co-accused, non-reinstatement of the petitioner was violative of Article 14.

Agreeing with the argument put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, the Court perused the charges framed against the petitioner and the co-accused and observed that the charges were identical and the only difference between both the cases were of stages of acquittal. The Court also considered the reinstatement order of the co-accused in which it was held that the absence of the co-accused was not treated as serious since he was absent from duty to avoid his arrest and was later acquitted by the trial court. On this, the Court opined that even the petitioner was absent for avoiding arrest and was acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The Court made reference to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in which out of the 3 constables and a head constable charged for same acts, 2 were exonerated while one was dismissed from service and other was imposed with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal of service to maintain parity in punishment among the co-delinquents ruling that otherwise, there would be violation of Article 14.

“Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident… Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.”

The Court also observed that the petitioner was not provided with the show-cause notice and the inquiry report of the disciplinary authority as required under Rule 16(10) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 that lays down the procedure for imposing major penalty. The Court ruled that passing of penalty order without serving show-cause notice along with the inquiry report upon a government servant was a violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the challenged orders were held to be in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

In this background the Court set aside the dismissal order passed by the superintendent of police as well as the order that dismissed the review petition holding these to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.

Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 147