[2025:RJ-JP:38864] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1719/2012 Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Sukhpal Singh, aged about 47 years, Ex.Head Constable No.68 R/o Village & Post Kurli, Distt. Bulandshahar (U.P.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Armed Battalions, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General of Police, R.A.C.-II, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Commandant, 8th Battalion, R.A.C. (IR), Gajipur, Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Prajapat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C. with Mr. Vishesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/09/2025 1. Present writ petition is direct against order dated 05.08.2008 issued by the respondent No.4, whereby penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has further assailed the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.06.2009 as well as the order of the Reviewing Authority dated 12.09.2011, whereby appeal and review filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (for short 'R.A.C.') on 18.06.1983. Later on, he was promoted to the [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (2 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] post of Head Constable on 11.03.2003 and vide order dated 28.05.2005, he was assigned duty of a Security Guard Commander at U.C.O. Bank, New Delhi. He was charge-sheeted with the allegations of remaining wilful and unauthorized absent w.e.f. 05.11.2005, as well as for being arrested on 07.11.2005 by the Uttar Pradesh Police which has lowered down the image of the respondent-Department. 3. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet and submitted that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case by the Uttar Pradesh Police in FIR No.1009/2005. Therefore, in order to pursue his legal recourse against such a criminal case, he remained absent on 05.11.2005 and on 06.11.2005. However, on 07.11.2005, he was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police in the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, his absence from 07.11.2005 onwards cannot be said to be wilful and unauthorized. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and ultimately penalty of dismissal from services was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2008. 4. Against the penalty order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, before the Inspector General of Police, R.A.C.. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by giving a finding that by indulging in a criminal case, the petitioner has defamed the Department and since he also remained wilfully absent, there was no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2009. [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (3 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority and after facing full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges in criminal case vide judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). After acquittal, he filed review petition before the Reviewing Authority along with the judgment of the Competent Criminal Court, and requested the Reviewing Authority to quash the penalty order as well as the appellate order. However, the review petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by not properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case and on account of such false implication, he remained absent only for two days and on the third day he was arrested by the police authorities. Under these circumstances, it has wrongly been assumed by the respondents that the petitioner was wilfully absent and so far as his implication in the criminal case is concerned, after acquittal by the Competent Criminal Court, such charge has lost its significance and effect. Therefore, the Reviewing Authority ought to have exonerated the petitioner from the charges in a departmental inquiry by quashing the penalty order as well as the appellate order. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents seriously opposed the writ petition and submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner in departmental inquiry were serious in nature as the petitioner was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police on account of his involvement in a criminal case [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (4 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] and he also remained wilfully absent from duty after 05.11.2005. Earlier also on so many occasions, the petitioner has remained wilfully absent for a total of 47 days. 8. It was also submitted that although subsequent to the passing of the penalty order as well as the appellate order, the Competent Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner of criminal charges, yet such acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and is simply based on the benefit of doubt, therefore, the Reviewing Authority has rightly not interfered in the penalty order as well as the appellate order. Even otherwise, despite acquittal in criminal charge, the petitioner had failed to submit any good and sufficient reason for his absence without obtaining a leave sanction. 9. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the scope of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of disciplinary inquiry is extremely limited and only in the cases, where it is established that the delinquent was not afforded an opportunity to put forward his defence or where there were apparent and manifest violations of procedure of conducting an inquiry or in the cases where the penalty imposed upon the delinquent appears to be excessive and disproportionate to the guilt committed, any interference can be made by the Writ Court. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any such material irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard and considered. 11. The petitioner was charged with two charges: first by involving in a criminal case, he has defamed the Department [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (5 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] which is a serious misconduct and, second he was wilfully absent from his duties. 12. So far as first charge is concerned, the petitioner was tried by the Competent Criminal Court and after recording the evidence, he was acquitted, although by granting him the benefit of doubt, of all the criminal charges. 13. The judgment of acquittal was delivered by the Competent Criminal Court after passing the order of penalty as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had no occasion to consider the judgment of acquittal. 14. However, after dismissal of appeal, when the judgment of acquittal was pronounced in favour of the petitioner, he approached the Reviewing Authority along with the judgment. Under these circumstances, the Reviewing Authority was under an obligation to consider the judgment and to give a cogent reasoning in respect of such judgment. The findings given by the Reviewing Officer are being reproduced as under: **miyC/k vfHkys[k ,oa iz'kklfud foHkkx dh fVIi.kh ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkjksfir dh fnukad 07-11-05 dh 'kke ls xkMZ M~;wVh fcuk lwpuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s vuqifLFkr jgk o vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa fyIr ik;s tkus ij fnukad 07-11-05 dks fxjQ~rkj gksdj dkjkxkj xkft;kckn] m-iz- Hkstk tkus rFkk rnksijkUr fujUrj drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk rFkk vijkf/kd izdj.k esa fyIr gksdj iqfyl dh Nfo /kwfey djus ds vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s tkus ij vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh us jkT; lsok ls eqDr fd;s tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA ;|fi U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksfir dks vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa nks"keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gS ijUrq vkjksfir ds fo:) fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s yEcss vlsZ rd M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk vjksi iw.kZr% lkfcr jgrk gSA vr% iz'kklfud foHkkx ds vfHker ds n`f"Vxr iznRr n.M vid`R; ds lekuqikfrd o mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ;kfpdk esa ,sls dksbZ uohu o lkjoku rF; is'k [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (6 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] ugha fd;s gSa ftlls vkjksfir ds mDr vipkj dk 'keu gksrk gSA vr% iz'kklfud foHkkx ds vfHker ds n`f"Vxr fjO;w ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 15. The aforesaid findings would reveal that there is no application of mind by the Reviewing Authority in respect of the effect and legal implications of acquittal by the criminal charges and rather it has been mechanically recorded that although the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charges, yet charges of wilful absence without getting the leave sanction were proved against the petitioner. 16. Even if the charge of wilful absence is taken at its face value, then the justification put forward by the petitioner cannot be ignored that the absence was only for a period of two days i.e. on 05.11.2005 & 06.11.2005 and on third day i.e. on 07.11.2005, the petitioner was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police. Under these circumstances from 07.11.2005 onwards it cannot be said the petitioner was wilfully absent, but he was absent under constraining circumstances. 17. So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and was merely on technical grounds on the account of giving the benefit of doubt giving to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2002) decided on 14.08.2005 has considered the similar question, where also the acquittal was not honourable and was based upon the benefit of doubt and this Court observed as under: "19. It is an admitted fact that in the criminal prosecution lodged by the respondent- department, which was also based upon the [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (7 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] similar facts, charges and set of evidence, the petitioner was acquitted by a criminal court on 17.05.2000. The acquittal is not a mere technical or procedural discharge; rather, it was grounded in a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offences. The record before this Court reveals that the primary evidence in both forums overlapped i.e., the letter and the issue of the certificate's provenance were central to both the criminal and departmental proceedings. In such circumstances the law laid down in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others (supra.) and explained in subsequent decisions including Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra.) and in Krishan Gopal Sharma vs The General Manager, UCO Bank & Others (supra.) is directly attracted. Hence, it is settled that where the criminal court declares acquittal on substantially identical evidence, it would ordinarily be inequitable to sustain departmental punishment based on the same evidence. 20. The criminal court's acquittal is a material and weighty circumstance which the disciplinary and appellate authorities were bound to consider carefully; their failure to give it due regard is a serious infirmity." 18. In the light of above, where the judgment of the Competent Criminal Court has not been properly considered by the Reviewing Authority, and no cogent reasoning has been given in this regard as well as coupled with the fact that by merely alleging wilful absence for three days, the penalty of dismissal from service appears to be quite harsh and excessive, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner by quashing the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Reviewing Authority and to remand the matter back for deciding the review petition afresh after giving findings over the effect of judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Criminal Court as well as on the question of quantum of punishment. Necessary orders [2025:RJ-JP:38864] (8 of 8) [CW-1719/2012] be passed by the Reviewing Authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/33