The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur bench, overturned the dismissal of a head constable who was penalized solely for being related to a candidate caught using an imposter in a police recruitment race. The court found no substantial evidence against the petitioner and ruled that he was unjustly removed from service.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, after examining the records, noted that the authorities had unfairly targeted the petitioner without any credible evidence. The judge stated:
"The respondents were hell-bent on removing the petitioner without there being even an iota of evidence against him. He was merely made a scapegoat due to his relation with the delinquent candidate."
The case revolved around the recruitment process for constables in Rajasthan, where the petitioner's nephew, Naresh, was found guilty of using an imposter to run the recruitment race in his place. An FIR was lodged against Naresh, the imposter Sukhdev, and the petitioner. However, a preliminary inquiry exonerated the petitioner, confirming he was not present at the location during the incident.
Despite the clean chit in the first inquiry, authorities initiated another probe, suggesting the petitioner was in a position to assist his nephew. Consequently, he was suspended, and disciplinary proceedings followed. Two primary charges were framed:
- Alleged collusion to benefit his nephew in the recruitment process.
- Tarnishing the department's image due to the media coverage of the fraud.
However, the High Court found these charges baseless, emphasizing that witnesses unanimously confirmed the petitioner’s absence from the race location.
"On carefully wading through the inquiry report, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the report is not only based on conjecture and surmises but is a complete misreading of oral and ocular evidence."
The court criticized the authorities for failing to establish a nexus between the petitioner and the fraud. The judge further remarked:
"If a Head Constable in the Police Department can be so influential as to manipulate recruitment, then the respondents should introspect their working and ponder over the sanctity of their recruitment process."
Moreover, the alleged negative publicity against the police department was based on a newspaper report that was not even included in the official records. The court ruled that dismissing the petitioner on such flimsy grounds was wholly unwarranted.
The court found the dismissal decision to be arbitrary and ruled in favor of the petitioner. It directed the Rajasthan government to:
- Reinstate the petitioner within 30 days.
- Pay him 50% of his salary and emoluments for the entire dismissal period.
- Consider the period of suspension for all service benefits, including promotions and increments.
Title: Rajaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
