[2024:RJ-JD:41551]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17863/2022

Prithvi Raj S/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of
Chak 1-TK, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB),
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB),
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police (Admn.), Anti Corruption
Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
6. The Addl. Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia with

Mr. Sunil Fageria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sandeep Soni.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

10/10/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 17.03.2020 (Annex.9) passed by the Superintendent of

Police (Admn.), Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur,

whereby, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon

the petitioner and recovery of salary and allowances which were

paid to him after the actual date of superannuation.

(Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 10:54:00 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:41551] (2 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that

the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the respondent

department on 22.10.1982. While the petitioner was working in

the respondent department, he was served with a charge-sheet on

11.09.2013 (Annex.5). In pursuance of the charge-sheet, a

Departmental Inquiry was conducted under the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. After

completion of the Inquiry, vide order dated 17.03.2020, the

disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from

service and recovery of salary and other allowances from the

petitioner after the date of his actual superannuation to be

deposited in the State treasury. An appeal was preferred by the

petitioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated

15.09.2022. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the argument

of attacking the orders dated 17.03.2020 and 15.09.2022 on the

ground that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is

disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working

in the respondent department on the post of Constable which is

the lowest post in the department and in the entire service career,

he has not been served with any punishment and his service

record has been unblemished. He, therefore, prays that while

maintaining the order of punishment, the punishment is prayed to

be reasonably reduced considering the misconduct committed by

the petitioner and taking into account the unblemished service

record of the petitioner.

(Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 10:54:00 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:41551] (3 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]

5. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the following judgments rendered by this Court:-

1. Onkar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9714/2016)
2. Hari Singh Bhuria Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2231/2000)
3. State of Rajasthn Vs. Hari Singh Bhuria (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.1657/2019)
4. Gopal Prasad Thakur Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
(W.P. (S) No.4919/2005).

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General is

unable to counter the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner and he submits that the respondents have taken

into consideration the misconduct committed by the petitioner and

has reasonably awarded the punishment commensurate with his

misconduct and the same does not warrants any interference.

7. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case including the impugned

orders dated 17.03.2020 and 15.09.2022.

8. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that the

petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the

respondent department in the year 1982 and since then, he has

been serving the department for almost 38 years. The entire

career of 38 years of the petitioner has remained unblemished and

he has never faced any inquiry for any misconduct committed by

him in discharge of his duties.

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has served the

department with utmost zeal and his service career remained

unblemished, therefore, this Court is of the view that the

(Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 10:54:00 AM)

 [2024:RJ-JD:41551] (4 of 4) [CW-17863/2022]

punishment awarded to the petitioner in the present case is

disproportionate, more particularly, when the charge against the

petitioner is that while entering into the services of the respondent

department, he has submitted a forged marksheet issued by

Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Bhopal.

10. In the opinion of this Court, the punishment awarded to the

petitioner needs to be interfered with as the same is excessive.

The punishment awarded is not commensurate with the

misconduct committed by the petitioner and, therefore, while

maintaining the order of punishment dated 17.03.2020, the order

of removal from service imposed by the respondents is quashed

and set aside and the rest of the order, whereby, the petitioner

was directed to deposit the entire amount of salary and allowances

after the actual date of superannuation in the Government

treasury is maintained. Accordingly, the appellate order dated

15.09.2022 also stands modified to that extent.

11. It is further ordered that the petitioner will be entitled for all

other service benefits taking into consideration his date of

superannuation i.e. 30.04.2018. The amount as ordered to be

deposited vide order dated 17.03.2020 shall be adjusted while

paying the other service benefits to the petitioner.

12. The respondents shall do the needful within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

19-Shahenshah/-

(Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 10:54:00 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)