Constable Dismissed On Bribery Complaint Gets Relief After Death; Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Punishment Citing Lack Of Enquiry

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal order of a deceased Head Constable who was allegedly caught on an audio clip demanding bribe for release of a vehicle carrying liquor.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that the dismissal order was passed without holding enquiry or following the procedure contained under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

“Without holding any enquiry and procedure contained under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner has been removed from service by the respondent in exercise of its powers contained under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. The disputed question of fact that whether the audio clip was containing voice of the petitioner or not, could have been proved or disproved after conducting enquiry against him and the respondent should have conducted enquiry against the petitioner to find out the truth.”

Rule 19 deals with special procedure for removal of a Government Servant by exempting the enquiry contained under Rules 16, 17 and 18 where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied by recording the reasons in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under the said rule.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner and his legal representatives submitted that respondents did not record its satisfaction as to why it was not reasonably practicable to follow procedure prescribed under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958. It was submitted that for the same incident, another Head Constable was placed under suspension and thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, however, in the case of petitioner, respondent had subjected him to discrimination and the impugned order of removing the petitioner from the service was passed against him.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the State submitted that voice of the petitioner in the audio clip was verified by three persons and under these circumstances the decision was taken to invoke the provisions contained under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958. It was argued that the negative quality cannot be claimed as a matter of right, therefore the petitioner cannot claim parity with another head constable’s case.

Court that the obligation of recording reasons under Rule 19, for departing from the norm, must strictly be conformed with and invocation of the power without bowing down to the constitutional mandate would render the order of penalty void.

“While passing the impugned order, the respondent was of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was competent to dismiss the petitioner from service by invoking Rule 19 (ii) and that it was not "reasonably practicable" to hold an enquiry. There is no independent finding about whether the Disciplinary Authority rightly invoked Rule 19 (ii) and whether the reason for invoking the power was recorded in writing justifying the satisfaction on the part of the authority to dispense with the enquiry,” the Court said.

The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398; Reena Rani v. State of Haryana 2012 (10) SCC 215 and Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 525.

The Court noted that the respondent has removed the petitioner without holding any enquiry while in the case of similarly placed another Head Constable, he was placed under suspension and domestic enquiry was initiated against him. It is to be noted that both orders in this regard were passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer on the same day i.e. February 27, 2020.

The Court further placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 73 in which it was held that 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.

The Court noted, “The respondent has caused discrimination in the case of petitioner and co-delinquent and without recording the reasons the order impugned was passed against the petitioner.”

It was observed by the Court that a presumption has been drawn by the respondent about demand of money by the petitioner on the basis of the said audio clip without there being any evidence of its veracity and admissibility or without there being any corroborative evidence.

“Hence, it is clear that no worthy reasons have been recorded by the respondent for dispensing with the enquiry against the petitioner and therefore, in view of express provisions of law and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the impugned order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that since the petitioner has demised during the pendency of this petition, no further direction either as to further enquiry or reinstatement can be given.

“This Court declares the removal order of the petitioner as invalid. Consequently, it would be deemed that the petitioner had died in harness. Needless to say that the petitioner would become entitled to the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination of his services up to date of his death, on the basis of last pay drawn by him,” it held.

The Court further directed the State to pay the arrears of the salary of the petitioner from the date of his termination till death and pay all the terminal benefits to his legal representatives within a period of 3 months.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

Case Name: Hanuman Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5574/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment