[2026:RJ-JP:11037-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 267/2019 Anil Kumar S/o Shri Bhagirth, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No.2684, Khajane Walon Ka Rasta, Behind Karodiya Bhawan, Purviyon Ka Chowk, Chandpole, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Home Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG Mr. Siddarth Sharma, AGC for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts of the case, as noted by the learned Single Judge in para No. 2, read as under: "2. Brief facts which need to be noted are that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules while he was holding the post of Constable, [2026:RJ-JP:11037-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-267/2019] on 26.10.1989 and allegations levelled were that while he was holding the post of Constable and posted at Police Station, Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur, he left the police station along with Sarjeet Singh, Gauri Shankar and Lekhraj without permission to another place, i.e., Ahinsa Circle. It is further alleged that he along with aforesaid persons allured one Shri Chander Prakash by fraud and obtained Rs.17000/- with promise of making the same double" 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant challenged the order of punishment dated 06.09.1991, whereby the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was awarded to the appellant. 3. The learned Single Judge, in the order, has considered the fact that the appellant had left the police station without any permission. The learned Single Judge has further considered that the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement notice on the enquiry report to the appellant. The said arguments have been considered in para No. 12, which reads as under: "12. In the present case, as the disagreement notice has already been served the required compliance has been made. The Disciplinary Authority has, in his order of punishment, discussed in brief the submissions and reasons for reaching at the conclusion. He has specifically left the decision regarding the charge No.2 for adjudication by competent court and therefore he has only held the petitioner guilty of having left the police station where [2026:RJ-JP:11037-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-267/2019] he was on duty without seeking permission. Since there is no permission placed on record of the competent officer by the petitioner. With regard to charge no.3, it has been partly proved and on the said basis the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of 3 grade increments with cumulative effect. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a member of the disciplinary force, this court does not find the punishment shocking disproportionate and on that count too therefore the action of the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be unjustified." 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge with regard to the punishment awarded to the appellant. The appellant has failed to show violation of any provision of law, rules, or principles of natural justice in the conduct of the departmental enquiry before the learned Single Judge. 5. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out; hence, the appeal is dismissed. 6. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PREETI VALECHA/MONU/60