[2025:RJ-JP:36379] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17139/2011 Hajari Lal Son Of Shri Lodhkiya Ram, R/o Dhola Ki Jhopari, Police Station Sadar, Bundi (Deceased) 1/1. Murti W/o Late Shri Hajari Lal, 1/2. Surendra Kumar Meena S/o Late Shri Hajari Lal, 1/3. Jolesh Bai D/o Late Shri Hajari Lal, 1/4. Bhagesh Bai D/o Late Shri Hajari Lal 1/5. Anita Kumari Meena D/o Late Shri Hajari Lal All R/o Dhola Ki Jhopari, Police Station Sadar, Bundi ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Department Of Home, Group-II, Secretariat Building, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota. 3. Superintendent Of Police, Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Prashant Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishesh Sharma for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 09/09/2025 Under challenge in the writ petition are the charge-sheet dated 03.01.2008, the punishment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting the punishment of “dismissal from service” upon the petitioner, the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the [2025:RJ-JP:36379] (2 of 4) [CW-17139/2011] appeal and the order dated 12.09.2011 dismissing the review petition. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record; but, for convenience, the deceased employee shall be referred as the petitioner hereinafter. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Rajasthan Police on 29.10.1989. Vide memorandum dated 03.01.2008, he was served with a charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1958 containing two allegations. After conducting the enquiry as per the procedure prescribed, the Disciplinary Authority punished him with the penalty of “dismissal from service” vide order dated 31.12.2008 which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. Assailing the orders impugned, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges found to be proved against him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the punishment of “dismissal from service” be altered with a lighter suitable punishment. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the prayer, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Vide memorandum dated 03.01.2008, following two charges were levelled against the petitioner: [2025:RJ-JP:36379] (3 of 4) [CW-17139/2011] vkjksi la[;k 1 ;g fd mDr Jh gtkjh yky dkfu- 568 iqfyl ykbZu cwUnh esa dk;Zjr gSA iqfyl ykbZu cwUnh ls vkidks Jh gdhe cD”k l-m-fu- ds lkFk dkuwu O;oLFkk M~;wVh gsrq jiV ua- 1135 fnukad 16-02-07 ls Fkkuk ds0 ikVu Hkstk x;kA vki vius dÙkZO; ij M~;wVh gsrq ugha igq¡pdj LoSPNk ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr gks x;sA bl ij Jh gdhe cD”k l-m-fu- us vken jiV la- 756 le; 8 ,-,e- fnukad 16-02-07 jkst-vke Fkkuk ds0ikVu ij vkidh vuqifLFkfr ntZ dh rcls gh vki yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgs gS tks ?kksj vuq”kklughurk dk |ksrd gSA vkjksi la[;k 2 ;g fd mDr dkykof/k ds nkSjku Jh gtkjh yky dkfu- 568 dks bl dk;kZy; ds vkns”k Mh-vks-ch-la 143 fnukad 06-03-07 ls fuyfEcr fd;k tkdj iqfyl ykbZu cwUnh esa mifLFkfr ntZ djokus gsrq funsZf”kr fd;k x;k ftldh izfr vki }kjk fnukad 03-05-07 dks izkIr djus ds mijkUr Hkh vki vc rd iqfyl ykbZu cwUnh esa mifLFkr ugh gq,A tks vkidk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns”kks dh vogsyuk o LoSPNkpkfjrk dk ifjpk;d gSA As per the material on record, despite service of the charge- sheet, the petitioner neither filed any response to it nor, attended the enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer found both the charges to be proved against him. Thereafter, he was punished with the penalty of “dismissal from service” by the Disciplinary Authority vide order impugned dated 31.12.2008 which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by the Reviewing Authority. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that it has been passed after appreciating the evidence on record and taking into consideration that in past also, he had remained absent wilfully on 20 occasions. The petitioner, being a member of [2025:RJ-JP:36379] (4 of 4) [CW-17139/2011] disciplined force, was not expected to remain wilfully absent for the long period as alleged in the charge-sheet and his past conduct also disentitled him for any relaxation in the penalty imposed. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find it to be a case of infliction of the penalty so disproportionate to the gravity of the charges found to be proved so as to shock conscience of this Court warranting its interference under writ jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/94