In a significant relief to a young constable dismissed over allegations of taking money for promising a police job, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has set aside the punishment, terming the disciplinary process unfair and based on “no legal evidence”. Justice Farjand Ali, delivering the order on December 4, noted that the reviewing authority acted with a “pre-determined mindset” while imposing the harsh penalty of dismissal.
Background
The petitioner, Shankar Ram, who joined the police force in 2008, faced accusations from 2009–10 his training days in Pali district. Authorities claimed he took ₹50,000 from a canteen contractor’s son after promising to help him become a constable. Initially, only a minor penalty of stopping two increments was imposed in 2016. But the punishment kept getting enhanced first to four increments, and eventually to dismissal in 2018 using suo motu review powers.
His counsel argued the whole case rested on a preliminary enquiry, whereas during a proper departmental hearing, the key witnesses retracted their allegations and even admitted the money was merely a personal loan now repaid. They said the severe punishment was “economic death” for a low-rank policeman.
Court’s Observations
Justice Ali agreed that the authorities relied on incorrect assumptions to reopen and escalate the penalty. The Court remarked sharply that a 27-page detailed order already existed at the disciplinary stage, yet the reviewer wrongly labelled it as a “non-speaking” order to justify suo motu action.
On the evidence, the judge pointed out that once a regular departmental enquiry is held, reliance on preliminary enquiry material becomes impermissible:
“The material of preliminary enquiry cannot be made the sole basis of punishment…”
He highlighted that even the State’s own police during criminal investigation for the same allegations concluded the case was a civil dispute over a loan, filing a negative Final Report accepted by the Magistrate:
“No material was found that could establish a case against the petitioner even on the spectrum of probabilities.”
The Court hinted that a fresh trainee constable influencing recruitment “defies logic”, especially when the complainants themselves withdrew the corruption claim.
Decision
Holding the reviewing authority’s decision “arbitrary” and “legally untenable”, the Court quashed the orders of 29.09.2017 and 15.05.2018. The dismissal was set aside, and the constable was ordered to be reinstated immediately, with his service treated as continuous though back wages will depend on a fresh review, if the authorities still choose to conduct one.
The judge strictly directed that any further punishment must rely only on evidence from the regular enquiry and take note of the criminal investigation’s closure.
Case Title:- Shankar Ram vs State of Rajasthan
Case Type & Number:- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 981/2019
Advocates:
- For petitioner: Mr. Vivek Firoda & team
- For respondents: Mr. Raj Singh Bhati