The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the potential delay in completing a disciplinary inquiry is not a valid justification for invoking Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeals) Rules, 1958, to bypass the inquiry process.
Key Observations by the Court
The Court, led by Justice Dinesh Mehta, emphasized that apprehensions about an employee influencing or tampering with evidence reflect the Department’s lack of confidence in its internal systems. Such concerns cannot be grounds for avoiding the prescribed disciplinary procedures.
Under Rule 19, disciplinary authorities can bypass standard procedures only if it is deemed impracticable to follow them. This requires the authority to record specific, valid reasons in writing.
Case Background
The petitioner, a constable in the Rajasthan Police, was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Rule 19(ii). The allegations against him included escorting a vehicle carrying narcotics, effectively colluding with drug dealers.
A preliminary inquiry was conducted, following which the SP invoked Rule 19(ii) to terminate the petitioner’s services without a formal disciplinary inquiry.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- There was no compelling reason to bypass the mandatory disciplinary inquiry.
- The petitioner had not even been charge-sheeted in the matter, further weakening the justification for the dismissal.
Government’s Stand
The Government defended the action, arguing that:
- The petitioner, being entrusted with curbing narcotics-related crimes, had betrayed his duty by colluding with offenders.
- Swift action was required to maintain discipline and send a strong message within the department.
Court’s Findings
After reviewing the arguments, the Court found the reasons cited by the disciplinary authority unconvincing. It observed that:
- The concern about the length of the inquiry does not qualify as a valid reason to bypass it.
- The fear of the petitioner tampering with evidence could have been addressed by suspending him, rather than bypassing the inquiry process.
The Court stated, “The possibility that the inquiry is likely to take substantial time cannot be a reason to do away with the inquiry. Moreover, the respondents’ apprehension that the petitioner would influence the inquiry and tamper with evidence reflects the Department’s lack of confidence in its own system.”
Judgment
The High Court held that bypassing the inquiry process based on the reasons cited in the SP’s order would undermine the provisions for disciplinary inquiries.
Consequently, the Court:
- Set aside the SP’s dismissal order and the decision of the Appellate Authority.
- Directed the petitioner’s reinstatement within 30 days.
- Ordered the disciplinary proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary matters, ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld even in cases requiring swift administrative action.
