Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

"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

Similar News