S P Jaipur City And Ors vs Jai Lal on 8 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

S P Jaipur City And Ors vs Jai Lal on 8 July, 2025

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2025:RJ-JP:24487]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 32/2003

1.       The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur
2.       The Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat
         Jaipur through its Officer Incharge, Additional S.P., Dausa
                                                   ----Appellants/Defendants
                                    Versus
Jai Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Ramji Lal, Village Lanka, Post Baerawnda,
Tehsil Sikari Distt. Dausa
                                                       ----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Sarita Choudhary for Ms.
                                Karishma Soni



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

                                JUDGMENT

Reserved on                             :::                      July 02, 2025
Pronounced on                           :::                      July 08, 2025

1. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment

and decree dated 25.01.2001 passed by the Court of learned

Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the

Appellate Court’) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 07/2000, whereby

the learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by

the appellants/defendants affirmed the judgment dated

24.02.2000 and decree dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Court of

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bandikui (Dausa) [for short

‘the trial court’] in Civil Case No. 55/91 (19/95).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff

filed a suit before the trial court under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 CPC

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (2 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

in the year 1991, seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and

consequential relief. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff

that he was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department

under the Scheduled Caste quota by order dated 05.06.1990 in

Jaipur District. He was assigned Belt No. 759 and placed on

probation for two years with a monthly salary of Rs. 1305/-.

The plaintiff-respondent alleged that his services were

abruptly terminated during the probation period vide order dated

22.09.1990, by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, on the

ground of unsatisfactory performance during the probation period.

The respondent/plaintiff claimed in the suit that the discharge

order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without affording any

opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural

justice because there is nothing on the record that his services

were not satisfactory during the probation period

The appellants/defendants in their written statement

filed through the Officer-in-Charge on 16.03.1992, opposed the

suit. It was specifically contended that the respondent/plaintiff had

suppressed the material information at the time of his

appointment, namely, that he was facing trial in a criminal case

under Sections 147, 148, and 379 IPC before the Additional Munsif

and Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui. This fact was deliberately

omitted by the respondent/plaintiff in Columns No. 8 and 9 of the

application form, which required disclosure of any involvement in

civil or criminal proceedings.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following

issues were framed by the trial court:-

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:01 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (3 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

“1- vk;k oknh dks fcuk fdlh ;qDrh;qDr dkj.k ds mls fcuk

iwoZ uksfVl fn;s mlds izksos’ku vof/k esa mldk dk;Z larks”k izn
gksus ij Hkh nqHkkZouk iwoZd fcuk iwoZ lquokbZ ds volj fn;s xSj
dkuwuh ,oa voS/k :i ls mldh jkT; lsok lekIr djus gsrq
vkns’k eqrnkfo;l fnukad 22@9@90 tkjh fd;k gS tks ‘kq:

ls gh ‘kwU; ,oa voS/k gS rFkk dkcys elw[k gSA
2- vk;k oknh dh foHkkxh; vihy dks izfroknh la0 1 us fcuk
O;fDr lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;s rFkk fcuk dkj.k crk;s
fujLr dj nhA ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gSA
3- vk;k U;k;ky; gktk dks okn dh lquokbZ djus dk
{ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA
4- vk;k oknh dks iqfyl }kjk tkap djus ij fiNyk vkpj.k
lsok ;ksX; ugha ik;s tkus ij dkuwuu lsok eqDr fd;k tk
ldrk gSA
5- vk;k fd oknh ds fo:) QkS0 eqdnek tsj nQk 147] 148]
379 Hkk0 na0 la0 vnkyr esa fopkjk/khu gksus ls mldk vkpj.k
vuSfrd ekuk tkdj mldh jktdh; lsok;sa fcuk uksfVl fn;s
lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA
6- nknjlh”

4. During the course of the trial, evidence was led by both

parties and arguments were heard. The trial court decided issues

No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the

appellants/defendants. The trial court held that the order of

discharge dated 22.09.1990 was passed without affording any

opportunity of hearing to the respondent/plaintiff and thereby

suffers from illegality on the grounds of breach of principles of

natural justice. The trial court declared the order of discharge as a

nullity and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff,

directing reinstatement with continuity of service, arrears of full

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (4 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

back wages, allowances, and entitlement to seniority and

promotion.

5. The appellants/ defendants aggrieved with the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court preferred

first appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide

its judgment dated 25.01.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellants/ defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree

passed by the trial court.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by

the trial court and so also the judgment of the Appellate Court

whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants was

dismissed, the appellants/ defendants have preferred the present

second appeal.

7. While admitting this second appeal vide order dated

01.10.2007, the Court framed the following substantial question of

law, involved in this second appeal:-

“Whether the plaintiff/ respondent concealed the
material facts about pendency of criminal cases against
him while filling-up his form for getting appointment on
the post of Constable and whether his removal during
probation period was justified, or not?”

8. Counsel appearing for the appellants/ defendants

submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the

services of the plaintiff, being a probationer, could have been

terminated without assigning any reason and without the

necessity of a departmental enquiry or show cause notice,

particularly when the discharge was simpliciter on the ground of

unsatisfactory performance. The counsel further submitted that

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (5 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

the concealment of material facts by the plaintiff regarding the

pending criminal case is a serious matter affecting the integrity

and suitability of a person for appointment in the disciplined force

like police. The counsel contended that such suppression

amounted to fraud and misrepresentation, rendering the

appointment void ab initio. On this ground alone, the

respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Counsel further

contended that both the courts below erred in converting a case of

discharge during probation into a punitive termination, without

adequate legal basis. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the

findings of both the courts below are perverse and contrary to

settled legal principles governing probationary employment and

suppression of material facts.

In light of the above submissions, counsel for the

appellants /defendants prays that the present second appeal be

allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by boththe

courts below be quashed and set aside, and the suit filed by the

respondent/plaintiff be dismissed with costs throughout.

9. Ms. Sarita Choudhary for Ms. Karishma Soni, counsel

appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff on the other hand

submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment

and decree passed by the trial court as well as the Appellate

Court. She also submitted that though in the order of removal

from service, the appellants/ defendants have mentioned the

reason that “the services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory

during the probation period” but this was not the actual reason for

removal of respondent/plaintiff from service. The

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (6 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

respondent/plaintiff in his plaint has specifically averred that his

services were quite satisfactory to the department authorities but

the appellants/ defendants in their impugned order of removal

from service stated that the services of the plaintiff/ respondent

were not satisfactory during probation period, which is wholly

illegal and contrary to record. The appellants /defendants in their

written statement have nowhere alleged that the services of the

respondent/plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation

period. It has only been stated in the written statement that the

plaintiff/ respondent has concealed material fact while submitting

the application form as regards the pendency of a criminal case

against him which shows that his conduct was not upto the mark

to retain him in service, meaning-thereby, the reason for removal

of service is not as has been stated in the impugned removal

order. Counsel has further submitted that in the appointment

order itself the appellants/ defendants have stated that the

appointment of a candidate can be cancelled if during verification

it is found that a candidate has concealed the material facts. In

such circumstances before cancelling any appointment it is

mandatory on the department authorities to follow the principles

of natural justice i.e. they could only cancel the appointment of a

candidate only after serving him a notice and allowing him an

opportunity to submit his/ her explanation. In the present case,

since the basic principle of natural justice was not followed before

removal of service of the respondent/plaintiff. The order of

removal of service of respondent/plaintiff is wholly illegal,

arbitrary and unjustified and therefore, the trial court has rightly

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (7 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

quashed and set aside the said order vide its judgment and decree

and the Appellate Court has further upheld the same. She further

submitted that the substantial question of law framed is liable to

be decided in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent in view of the

totality of the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the

case.

10. During the pendency of this second appeal, the

appellants/ defendants have submitted an application under Order

41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC to place on record certain

additional documents.

11. Taking into consideration the issue involved in this

second appeal and after going through the documents attached

with the application, the Court feels that the said documents are

necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the

parties and therefore, the application filed by the

appellants/defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section

151 CPC is allowed and the documents attached with the

application are taken on record.

12. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also

perused the record of the case.

13. In view of the substantial question of law framed while

admitting this second appeal on 01.10.2007, the Court is to

examine the basic pleadings of the parties.

14. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and

injunction so as to set aside the order of removal from service

dated 22.09.1990. The language of the order of removal from

service of the respondent/plaintiff is quoted as under:-

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (8 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

“Jh t;yky] dkfu0 739 iqfyl ykbZu t;iqj dk dk;Z

ijhfo{kk/khu vof/k esa lUrks”kizn u ik;k tkus ds dkj.k jkT;
lsok ls fMLpktZ fd;k tkrk gSA
vkns’k rqjUr izHkko’khy gksxkA”

15. The respondent/ plaintiff in para No.3 of the plaint has

made the averments as under:-

“3- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ oknh dks jkT; lsok ls izfroknh foi{kh

la[;k 2 ds vkns’k dzekad 9518 fnukad 22@9@1990
ftls ;gka ds mijkUr vkns’k eqrnkfo;k ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k
gS ds fcuk iwoZ lwpuk rFkk fcuk ,d ekg dk vfxze osru fn;s
jkT; lsok ls fMLpktZ ¼izFkd½ dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ oknh dk
dk;Z nkSjkus ijhfo{kk/khu gj izdkj lUrks”k izn jgk Fkk rFkk
mlds jktdk;Z ls izfroknhx.k rFkk mlds vQljku
izlUu ,oe~ lUrq”V jgs ysfdu fQj Hkh mDr vkns’k esa izkFkhZ
oknh ds dk;Z dk ifjoh{kk/khu vof/k esa lUrks”kizn ugha ik;s
tkus dk >waBk ,oe~ cscqfu;kn vkjksi yxkdj mls jkT; lsok
ls fMLpktZ dj fn;k x;k ftldh lwpuk oknh izkFkhZ dks vius
xkao ykadk rglhy fldjk; esa izkIr gksus ij mlus izfroknh
la[;k nks ds vkns’k eqrnkfo;k ds fo:) izfroknh la[;k ,d
jktLFkku ljdkj ds le{k tfj;s x`g ea=h vihy izLrqr dh
ftls fcuk lquokbZ rFkk fcuk mDr vihy ij xkSj fd;s mls
[kkfjt dj fn;k x;k ftldh lwpuk izkFkhZ oknh dks izfroknh
la[;k nks ds i= la[;k 10652 fnukad 30@11@90 ds tfj;s
izkFkhZ oknh dks tfj;s Mkd fHktokbZ xbZ tks izkFkhZ oknh dks
xzke ykadk rglhy fldjk; esa fnukad 3@12@1990 dks izkIr
gqbZA gkykafd mDr fMLpktZ vkns’k eqrnkfo;k esa izfroknh
la[;k nks }kjk izkFkhZ ds fMLpktZ dk tks feF;k dkj.k ntZ
fd;k x;k og mlds izkscs’ku vof/k esa mlds dk;Z dk
lUrks”kizn ugha gksuk ntZ fd;k x;k gS tcfd gdhdr esa

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (9 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

izfroknh la[;k 2 us mDr >waBs dkj.k dh vkM esa oknh izkFkhZ
dks mlds f[kykQ py jgs QkStnkjh eqdnek vUrxZr /kkjk
147] 323] 509] Hkk0 na0 la0 ds dkj.k mls fMLpktZ fd;k
x;k gSA
mDr gkykr esa vkns’k izfroknh la[;k 2 dyjsfcy nqHkkZouk
iw.kZ ,oe~ eSykQkbM gS rFkk dkfcys ealw[k gSA”

16. The appellants/ defendants have submitted the written

statement and denied the averments made in para No.3 of the

plaint as under:-

“3- ;g fd izkFkZuk i= dk pj.k ua0 3 ftl rjg fy[kk gS]

xyr gS Lohdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ oknh dh fu;qfDr jktLFkku
iqfyl foHkkx esa nks o”kZ ds fy, ifjfo{kk/khu vof/k ds fy, dh
xbZA fu;qfDr nsus ds i’pkr mlds thoup;kZ ,oe~ fiNys
vkpj.k ds ckjs esa foHkkx dks tkudkjh djus ij gh lUrks”k izn
vkpj.k tkap ,oe~ fdlh QkStnkjh eqdnesa esa fyIr ugha gksus
ij gh ,sls O;fDr dks duQkbu fd;k tkrk gS vxj fdlh
QkStnkjh ekeys esa fyIr gksus ij ,sls O;fDr dks ifjfo{kk/khu
vof/k lekIr dj fcuk uksfVl fn, gh ukSdjh ls gVk;k tk
ldrk gSA oknh izkFkhZ tks fd og Lo;e ;g Lohdkj djrk gS
fd mlds fo:) QkStnkjh eqdnek vUrxZr /kkjk 147] 323]
379 dk okn py jgk gS ftls oknh us ukSdjh dk izkFkZuk i=
nsrs le; Nqikdj foHkkx dks /kks[kk fn;k gS vr% ,sls O;fDr dks
iqfyl dh ukSdjh esa ugha j[kk tk ldrk] cfd;k bckjr xyr
gS ,oe~ Lohdkj ugha gSA”

17. Though the respondent/ plaintiff in his plaint has

specifically stated that he has been removed from the service with

false allegations of ‘unsatisfactory service’ during the probation

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (10 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

period but the services of the respondent/ plaintiff as a Constable

after his appointment were quite satisfactory and the appellant –

department has removed the respondent / plaintiff from service in

view of the allegation of concealment of fact while submitting the

application form for recruitment hiding the fact of pendency of a

criminal case.

18. The appellants/ defendants- department in their written

statement have nowhere stated that the services of the

respondent /plaintiff were not satisfactory during the probation

period. It has been averred by the appellants/ defendants in their

written statement that the respondent/ plaintiff has concealed the

fact of pendency of criminal case by submitting the application

form and therefore, during the probation period he can be

removed from the service without issuing notice and holding

inquiry.

19. Counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments

that a probationer can be removed from the service on account of

unsatisfactory service during probation without even issuing any

show-cause notice to him or holding any inquiry, has referred the

following judgments:-

A. Managing Director, Energetic Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Presiding Officer, Shops and Commercial Establishments & Anr.,
reported in 2013(7) SLR 603 (Raj.);

B. Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. &
Ors., reported in 1997(1) SLR 136;

C. Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169; and

D. Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr. v. L.A. Balakrishna,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 625.

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (11 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

20. Counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in

the case of Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr.,

reported in 1984(1) SLR 426, in support of her submission that

issuance of show cause notice was mandatory before removal

from service.

21. The judgments cited by the counsel appearing for the

appellants/ defendants are in regard to the submission that a

probationer can be removed from the service if his services during

probation do not find to be satisfactory and such removal is

neither stigmatic nor punitive. In the present case on the basis of

the pleadings, this Court finds that in the order of removal of

respondent/ plaintiff from service though the appellant-

Department has mentioned that the services of the respondent/

plaintiff are being put to an end for the reason that his services

during the probation period were not satisfactory. However, in the

written statement they have not pleaded a single word that the

services of the respondent / plaintiff during the probation period

were not satisfactory but they have alleged that the respondent/

plaintiff has concealed the material fact while submitting the

application form for recruitment as regards the pendency of a

criminal case against him. When the suit proceedings were going

on and the matter was fixed before the trial court on 10.07.1998,

no-one appeared on behalf of the appellants/ defendants and the

Court ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the appellants/

defendants. No evidence was adduced from the defendants’ side

of any manner whether the services of the respondent/ plaintiff

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (12 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

were unsatisfactory during probation period or he has been

removed from the service for some other reason. Since in the

order of removal the reason for removal from the service is

mentioned as “unsatisfactory service during probation period”. The

respondent/ plaintiff in his plaint has specifically averred that the

services of the respondent /plaintiff were quite satisfactory during

the probation period and he has been removed from the service in

view of an allegation of concealment of fact of a criminal case

while submitting the application form for recruitment and in such

circumstances since the allegation of concealment was not

justified, the appellants/ defendants were under an obligation to

issue a show-cause notice and adhere to the principle of natural

justice. The judgment cited by the counsel appearing for the

respondent /plaintiff of Anoop Jaiswal (supra) i.e. in relation to

the misconduct wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is attracted, has

discharged from the service, is in violation of the same.

22. It is a well settled law that the services of an employee

who is under probation can be put to end on the count that his

services are not satisfactory during probation period without

holding any inquiry or issuing any notice to the said employee.

The object behind removing such person for unsatisfactory service

during probation period is that the issue of unsatisfactory service

is only the satisfaction and observation of the employer /

authority. Whether the services are satisfactory or unsatisfactory,

that can only be made by the employer/ authorities, which cannot

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (13 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

be adjudicated on the basis of any kind of explanation of an

employee.

23. In the present case as per the pleadings of the

appellants/ defendants in the written statement, the

respondent /plaintiff has been removed from the service on

account of allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of a

criminal case, though in the order of removal they have simply

said that the services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory during

the probation period. Since the actual reason for removal of the

respondent/ plaintiff from service is concerned i.e. the allegation

of concealment of fact of pendency of a criminal case while

submitting the application form for recruitment. The order of

removal which discloses the reason of removal as unsatisfactory

service, may not be a punitive or stigmatic order but the pleadings

very much clearly speak that the plaintiff’s removal from service is

because of the allegation of concealment of fact of pendency of a

criminal case and in such circumstances since there is an

allegation against the respondent/ plaintiff, the removal becomes

stigmatic. As regards the allegation of concealment of fact of

pendency of criminal case is concerned, though the respondent

/plaintiff has stated that there is no such concealment in view of

the totality of the facts of the case but even if the appellant-

department has received any kind of information which could lead

to say that there was any kind of concealment on the part of

plaintiff, the appellants / defendants were under an obligation to

issue a show cause notice and allow him an opportunity to defend

the allegations. On the allegation of concealment of pendency of

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (14 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

criminal case the appellants/ defendants were supposed to adhere

to the principle of natural justice in view of provisions of Article

311(2) of the Constitution of India. As regards any kind of

allegation in regard to adverse report, the employer is required to

abide by the principle of natural justice even if the employee is

under probation. It is to be noted that Article 311(2) of the

Constitution of India does not make any distinction in between a

regular employee or an employee who is on probation for the

purpose of dismissal / removal from service on the basis of certain

allegations against an employee.

24. Since the actual reason for plaintiff’s removal from the

service is concerned, the allegation against him is in regard to

concealment of fact while submitting the application form for

recruitment as regards the pendency of a criminal case and

therefore, in such a situation the appellants/ defendants ought to

have adhered to the principle of natural justice.

25. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of

the view that while removing a person from service on account of

allegation of concealment of material fact regarding pendency of a

criminal case against him while submitting the application form for

getting the appointment, the employer / authority should have

adhered to the principle of natural justice even though the

employee is under probation. Hence, this Court can safely upheld

the view of both the courts below that plaintiff’s removal from

service during probation period without adhering to the principle

of natural justice is illegal and unjustified.

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:24487] (15 of 15) [CSA-32/2003]

26. Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the appellants/

defendants is dismissed.

27. Cost made easy.

28. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeal, the

stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand

disposed of.

29. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the

case to the concerned court forthwith.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar

(Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 05:01:02 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)