Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Satya Narain Yadav Son Of Shri Jagmal … vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:32357) on 19 August, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:32357]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27949/2018
Satya Narain Yadav Son Of Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav, Aged About
44 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 5, Pawanpuri C, Charan Nadi,
Murlipura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department , Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Headquarters, Police
Commissionerate, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal assisted by
Mr. Aayush Bansal
Mr. Akshay Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, DGC
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
19/08/2025
On last date, i.e., 14.08.2025, this Court passed the
following order:-
"Under challenge is the order dated
25.03.2017 passed by the disciplinary
authority- the Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Headquarter) whereby, invoking the provisions
of Rule 19(ii) of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1958, services of the petitioner- the Constable
Driver, have been terminated as also the
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 10:06:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:32357] (2 of 3) [CW-27949/2018]
appellate order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the
Police Commissioner dismissing the appeal.
The gravamen of the allegations of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
disciplinary authority has, without recording the
reasons for arriving at satisfaction that the
inquiry under Rules of 1958 was not reasonably
practicable, the order impugned has been
passed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that while there is settled
legal principle that if a Constable is found drunk
on duty, it is gravest form of misconduct
entailing termination of his services without
following either the procedure prescribed under
the disciplinary rules or the principles of natural
justice. He prays for and is granted time to cite
the precedential law in this respect.
List the matter on 19.08.2025 at top of
the list as prayed.”
Today, after making submissions for some time, learned
counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the order
impugned dated 25.03.2017 does not satisfy the requirement laid
down under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity “the
Rules of 1958”) which mandates the disciplinary authority to
record the reasons in writing to arrive at the satisfaction that it is
not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in
the Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958. He also does not
dispute that the aforesaid requirement is mandatory in nature as
also held by a Constitution Bench in the case of Union of India &
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 10:06:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:32357] (3 of 3) [CW-27949/2018]
Anr. versus Tulsiram Patel and other connected matters:
AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1416 as under:-
“133. The second condition necessary for the
valid application of clause (b) of the second
proviso is that the disciplinary authority should
record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that
it was not reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a
Constitutional obligation and if such reason is not
recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the
inquiry and the order of penalty following
thereupon would both be void and
unconstitutional.”
In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual and legal
position, nothing much survives for consideration of this Court in
this writ petition which deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned
dated 25.03.2017 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held
entitled for reinstatement in service with notional benefits only as
agreed by his learned counsel.
However, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed
against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so desired.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/s-307
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 10:06:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)