Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

"No Room for Arbitrary Dismissals: High Court Quashes Unjust Removal of Police Constable, Stresses Due Process"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, led by Hon'ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has set a precedent in upholding the principles of justice and equality in the workplace. The court, in its decision on October 3, 2023, quashed the dismissal order of a police constable, emphasizing the indispensability of due process.

The case, numbered [2023:RJ-JP:21106], revolved around the petitioner, a Head Constable who was summarily dismissed from service based on an audio clip, without a formal inquiry as mandated by Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner's plea challenged this dismissal, highlighting the lack of due process and apparent discrimination compared to a co-delinquent who was only suspended and faced departmental proceedings.

Justice Dhand, in his judgment, underscored the importance of adhering to procedural norms. He stated, "What however is non-negotiable is that the Disciplinary Authority must state its reason in writing for dispensing with a disciplinary enquiry which would have an indelible impact on the person who is removed, dismissed from service or reduced in rank without an enquiry." This remark highlights the court's firm stance on the necessity of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.

The court scrutinized the respondent's decision to bypass the regular inquiry process, focusing on the requirement to record reasons for such a decision. The judgment also pointed out the discriminatory treatment of the petitioner in comparison to the co-delinquent, stressing the principle of equality among individuals facing similar allegations.

In a significant observation, the court noted, "The threshold to prove dispensation of due process and compliance with the principles of natural justice is high in all matters but particularly heightened in Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958." This statement from the bench resonates with the broader legal principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

The verdict was a relief to the deceased petitioner's family, as the court declared the removal invalid and ordered that it be deemed the petitioner had died in harness. This ensures the petitioner's entitlement to the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination to the date of his death and directs the payment of terminal benefits to his legal representatives.

This decision by the Rajasthan High Court is seen as a critical reminder to all administrative authorities about the importance of maintaining transparency, fairness, and equality in disciplinary proceedings. It reaffirms the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against arbitrary and discriminatory practices in employment.

Date of Decision:  03.10.2023

Hanuman Ram VS State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News