HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1178/2011 Dr. Meghraj Meena son of Shri Bhambhal Meena, via Post Jodli, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajsthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director (Public Health) Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. The contents of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Rural Medical Officer on probation basis for a period of two years. During currency of his probation, an FIR No.60/2010 was registered against him with Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Tonk for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of (2 of 3) [CW-1178/2011] Corruption Act (for short, ‘the P.C. Act’). On the basis of registration of the said FIR, the work of the petitioner was treated as invalid and accordingly, a decision was taken to remove him from service. It was observed in the order that the aforesaid act of the petitioner was immoral, hence his services were found to be unsatisfactory. 3. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Careful examination of the impugned order reflects that services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of lodging of FIR under the provision of P.C. Act. Lodging of such report against him is treated as his immoral act and conduct during the probation period of his service. Under such circumstances, the impugned termination order is stigmatic in nature and the same was passed without conducting inquiry and affording him any opportunity of hearing. 5. The services of the petitioner have been terminated simply on the basis of registration of FIR against him. Lodging of FIR or criminal case does not amount to misconduct and the same cannot be a ground for termination of service of regularly selected candidate, unless and until, such employee is found guilty by the competent Court of law, but the respondents have passed the order impugned on this count alone, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. (3 of 3) [CW-1178/2011] 7. The respondents would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, in case, the petitioner is found guilty in the criminal case or in the departmental enquiry, if so initiated against him. 8. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 9. Since the petitioner is not aware of this order, passed by the Court, let a copy of this order be sent to the petitioner for his intimation, information and compliance. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/105