The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed on a constable (“Petitioner”) who had been charged with submitting a forged marksheet during his recruitment. The Court ruled that the punishment was disproportionate given the Petitioner’s unblemished service record of 38 years and the nature of the misconduct.
Case Background
The case was brought before the bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, who was hearing a writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which resulted in his removal from service. The order also required the Petitioner to repay the salary and allowances he had received after his actual date of superannuation.
Allegations and Misconduct
The Petitioner was appointed as a constable in 1982. However, in 2013, he was served with a charge sheet accusing him of submitting a forged marksheet during the recruitment process. Despite the long duration of his service, the charge of misconduct was related to a single instance during his initial appointment. In 2020, the Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of removal from service along with the recovery of salary and allowances paid to the Petitioner after the actual date of superannuation.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner
The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The defense emphasized that the Petitioner held the lowest post in the department and had an unblemished record throughout his entire service career. No prior disciplinary action or punishment had been taken against him during his 38 years of service. In light of his long and dedicated service, the defense requested a reduction in the penalty.
Court’s Ruling
The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the arguments put forth by the Petitioner. The Court noted the Petitioner’s significant and long-standing service to the department. It opined that the punishment of removal from service was excessive and not aligned with the nature of the misconduct.
Modification of Punishment
While the Court agreed that the removal from service was disproportionate, it upheld the order directing the Petitioner to repay the salary and allowances received after his actual superannuation date to the Government treasury. This part of the punishment was retained, as it was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
Entitlement to Service Benefits
The Court clarified that the Petitioner was entitled to all other service benefits despite the misconduct. The removal order was set aside, and the Petitioner was granted all his rights to the benefits accrued during his long tenure with the department.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the punishment of removal from service was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct. The writ petition was disposed of, with the Petitioner entitled to service benefits while being required to repay the salary and allowances paid after the actual superannuation date.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
