[2026:RJ-JP:1070] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13813/2008 Uma Pareek w/o. Shro Prem Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o E- 58, RPA, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. 4. Shri M.K. Govil, Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Jaipur. 5. Shri Praveen Sharma, Additional Superintendent of Police (IB) Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Dhand Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi Deputy Government Counsel with Mr. Munendra Singh Fauzdar Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Date of conclusion of arguments :: 12.01.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved :: 12.01.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment Date of pronouncement :: 19.01.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging preliminary enquiry report dated 26.12.2007, charge- sheet dated 24.03.2008, enquiry report dated 02.08.2008 and punishment order dated 01.09.2008 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, as also challenged Appellate Authority's order dated 26.10.2010 and Reviewing Authority's order [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (2 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] dated 12.06.2012. The petitioner has further prayed for direction of reinstatement with all service benefits. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 08.08.1990 and she was promoted to the post of Head Constable against the vacancy year 2002 after passing the qualifying examination. During service, the petitioner was sanctioned casual leave from 12.10.2007 to 21.10.2007 and had also applied in advance on 11.10.2007 for privilege leave from 30.10.2007 to 08.11.2007, followed by Deepawali holidays. After availing casual leave, she allegedly fell seriously ill on 22.10.2007 and accordingly, informed the Office Superintendent and Duty Officer telephonically. Medical certificates relating to the relevant period were later submitted by her. However, ignoring the petitioner’s illness and leave application, the petitioner was treated as absent without information, which led to her suspension on 22.11.2007 under contemplation of departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958'). 3. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered on 27.11.2007 and conducted by an officer of CID (IB), in quite cursory manner without disclosing charges or supplying documents. The Enquiry Officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry, where he examined only neighbours and travelled beyond the scope of enquiry by referring to earlier periods of absence already adjudicated and submitted a preliminary enquiry report dated 26.12.2007 recommending departmental action. 4. Based on the preliminary enquiry report, a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2008 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served, [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (3 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] containing four charges: (i) willful absence from 22.10.2007, (ii) past instances of prolonged absence for which punishments had earlier been imposed, (iii) habitual absenteeism, and (iv) misbehaviour with neighbours in police quarters bringing disrepute to the department. 5. The petitioner asserts that the charge-sheet was served without furnishing copies of relied upon documents. Despite repeated applications dated 15.04.2008 and 30.04.2008, no documents were supplied and without even waiting for reply to the charge sheet, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The suspension was later revoked on 31.05.2008 and the petitioner was posted in CID (IB), Jaipur. 6. It is stated that prior to and during the enquiry, the petitioner sought change of the Enquiry Officer alleging bias and personal vendetta, but her representations to the Disciplinary Authority, Inspector General and higher authorities were rejected. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record statements of witnesses in the absence of the petitioner, without supplying documents and without permitting cross-examination. The enquiry was, thus, conducted in violation of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and principles of natural justice. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 02.08.2008 holding all the charges proved against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation dated 23.08.2008 against the enquiry report stating inability to respond effectively due to non- supply of documents, but without granting any further opportunity or considering her defence, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (4 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 01.09.2008 and forfeited pay and allowances of the suspension period. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.10.2010 and thereafter, even the review petition was rejected by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 12.06.2012, without independent application of mind and without considering the legitimate grounds raised by the petitioner. 9. On receiving notices of the writ petition, the respondents filed reply categorically denying the facts of the writ petition and it was submitted that charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was containing four specific charges. Petitioner was granted opportunity to file reply, which was not availed by her, nor did she effectively participate in the enquiry proceeding. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to inspect documents, participate in the enquiry and submit her defence, but she repeatedly failed to cooperate, sought adjournments and did not submit her defence despite sufficient opportunities. Thereupon, Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings, in which after analysis of material and evidence on record, all charges were found proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 02.08.2008 holding all charges proved. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 07.08.2008 under Rule 16(10)(a) of the Rules of 1958. The petitioner did not submit any effective representation to point out any manifest and apparent defect in the enquiry proceedings. After examining the enquiry report, evidence on record and the petitioner’s past service record, the Disciplinary Authority [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (5 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] compulsorily retired the petitioner from service vide order dated 01.09.2008, noting that repeated punishments had failed to bring any improvement in her conduct. The petitioner’s statutory appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 26.10.2010, holding that she was a habitual willful absentee and the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate. The review petition filed before the Hon’ble Governor was also dismissed on 12.06.2012, observing that the petitioner had remained willfully absent for a total period of about 1580 days and compulsory retirement was an appropriate punishment for such misconduct. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings recorded in the enquiry are perverse, based on selective consideration of evidence and material defence of the petitioner was ignored. The entire departmental proceedings stood vitiated due to gross, deliberate and continuous violation of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. Compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 is mandatory and any enquiry conducted in breach thereof is void ab initio. In the present case, the petitioner was never supplied with the relied-upon documents including the copy of preliminary enquiry report along with the charge-sheet. Despite repeated written applications, neither the Disciplinary Authority, nor the Enquiry Officer furnished the documents relied upon against the petitioner. Without availability of such documents, the petitioner was deprived of her statutory right to submit an effective reply to the charge-sheet and to defend herself during the enquiry. The enquiry, thus, stood vitiated for non- compliance of mandatory statutory provisions. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry Officer recorded statements of prosecution witnesses in [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (6 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner was neither supplied copies of the statements, nor afforded any opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. Denial of cross-examination and refusal to permit defence evidence strike at the very root of a fair enquiry and render the entire proceedings null and void. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner repeatedly sought change of the Enquiry Officer on the ground of personal hostility and prejudice, but her requests were mechanically rejected by the Disciplinary Authority as well as higher authorities. He emphasised that consistent denial of documents, selective recording of evidence, refusal to follow statutory rules and haste in concluding the enquiry unmistakably demonstrate a predetermined mindset. An enquiry conducted by a biased authority is non est in the eyes of law. 13. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. The petitioner had informed the Duty Officer and Office Superintendent telephonically on 22.10.2007 for remaining on leave and had submitted valid medical certificates issued by competent authorities. Absence due to illness with due intimation cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed willful absence. 14. Learned counsel pointed out that Charge No.2 pertains entirely to past incidents for which departmental proceedings had already been concluded and punishments imposed upon the petitioner. Revival of concluded matters amounts to double jeopardy and is impermissible in law. Past conduct cannot be made the basis of a substantive charge. Charge No.3 alleging habitual absence is vague, baseless and unsupported by evidence. There is no material [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (7 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] on record to establish that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. Mere repetition of past allegations does not constitute proof. Charge No.4 relates to an alleged personal dispute with neighbours, which has no nexus with official duties and does not constitute misconduct under the service rules. The witnesses examined in support of this charge were interested witnesses and the alleged acts, even if assumed to be true, fall outside the scope of departmental misconduct. 15. While making submissions on the point of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, is shockingly disproportionate and arbitrary. 16. Learned counsel also submitted that the Appellate and Reviewing authorities have also failed in discharging their statutory duties. Both, Appellate Authority's order dated 26.10.2010 and Reviewing Authority's order dated 12.06.2012 are non-speaking, mechanical and passed without due application of mind. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Prabhakar Hegde vs Bank of Baroda (Civil Appeal No. 6599/2025 decided on 19.08.2025); The State of Odisha & Anr. vs Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6242/2021 decided on 06.10.2021); State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow vs Ram Prakash Singh (Civil Appeal No. 14724/2024 decided on 23.04.2025); State of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram (Civil Appeal No. 4/1970 decided on [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (8 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] 09.10.1974); Union of India & Ors. vs Prakash Kumar Tandon (Civil Appeal No. 7349/2008 decided on 17.12.2008) and Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2106/2012 decided on 15.02.2012). 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited. It was contended that the enquiry was fair, the findings are supported by evidence and the penalty imposed is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and past service record of the petitioner. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is evident from the record that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to inspect records, participate in the enquiry proceedings and submit her defence. However, the petitioner deliberately adopted a non-cooperative attitude, repeatedly sought adjournments, refused to sign proceedings and failed to submit her reply within the stipulated time. Despite this, sufficient latitude was shown to her by the Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed enquiry report dated 02.08.2008, wherein all the charges were found fully proved on the basis of evidence available on record. A copy of the enquiry report along with a show-cause notice under Rule 16(10)(a) of the Rules of 1958 was duly served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 07.08.2008. Even at that stage, the petitioner failed to submit any effective representation. The Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration of the charge-sheet, enquiry report, evidence on record and the past service record of the petitioner, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was a habitual willful absentee [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (9 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] and had shown complete indifference towards discipline. In these circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed vide order dated 01.09.2008, which is proportionate and justified. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents added that the petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority and thereafter, she also filed review petition. The Appellate and Reviewing authorities, after independently examining the entire record, dismissed the appeal and review petition. 21. Learned counsels further submitted that the allegation of non-supply of documents or denial of opportunity is factually incorrect and misleading. The charge-sheet itself contained a statement of allegations and the petitioner was specifically informed that she could inspect and obtain extracts of the relevant documents from the office. The enquiry record demonstrates that the documents including copy of preliminary enquiry report were made available to her and that she was repeatedly directed to participate in the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed ex parte only after the petitioner persistently failed to cooperate despite clear warnings. Ex parte proceedings were, thus, fully justified and in accordance with law. 22. Learned Counsel also raised an objection that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot reappreciate evidence, nor can interfere with findings of fact based on evidence and nor can interfere with the quantum of punishment, unless it shocks the conscience of the [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (10 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] Court. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law, findings are supported by evidence and the punishment imposed is proportionate, particularly in view of the petitioner’s repeated misconduct and long history of willful absence. The record reveals that the petitioner has shown continuous indiscipline, negligence and disregard for the norms of a disciplined police force. The Appellate and Reviewing authorities have applied their minds and passed reasoned orders. No procedural illegality, perversity or violation of natural justice is made out. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 23. I have carefully heard rival submissions of counsels for the parties and perused the record. 24. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled position of law that disciplinary proceedings are conducted by the employer in exercise of its administrative authority to maintain discipline, integrity, and efficiency in service. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, do not sit as appellate authorities over departmental enquiries and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority. 25. It is significant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying upon its earlier judgments in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (11 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] 749; Union of India & Another v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, Om Kumar & Others v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386; Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. & Another, (2007) 4 SCC 669, and Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Another. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620, has authoritatively delineated the contours of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It has been categorically held that High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence, cannot interfere with findings of fact if they are based on some evidence and cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by perversity, illegality or procedural impropriety. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is beyond the scope of judicial review. 26. Similarly, in the case of Union of India & Others v. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that interference with punishment is justified only when the penalty is strikingly disproportionate and even then, the matter should ordinarily be remitted to the disciplinary authority rather than substituting the punishment. 27. Recently, in the case of Union of India & Others vs Pranab Kumar Nath 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2893, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again emphasised that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not an appellate forum in disciplinary matters and cannot interfere with punishment unless there is substantial non-compliance of statutory rules or settled legal principles. [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (12 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] 28. As regards judgment of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, while dealing with the matter of willful absence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in departmental proceedings, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is levelled, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful. In the present case, it is evident from enquiry report and other material that it has sufficiently been proved that the absence of the petitioner was willful and unauthorised. In the case of State of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is unjust and unfair to deny copies of statement of witnesses examined during enquiry; whereas in the instant case note sheets of the enquiry proceedings placed on record reveal that copies of statements were provided to the petitioner. In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs Prakash Kumar Tandon (supra), it has been held that if the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. However, in the case in hand, there is nothing on record to infer that there was any unfairness on the part of Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority, rather sufficient and ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend her case. In the matter of K. Prabhakar Hegde (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that preliminary enquiry cannot be made the basis of punishment, more particularly when copy thereof has not been supplied to the delinquent. Such principle is also not applicable in the instant case because apart from preliminary enquiry, other material has also been considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing penalty and the note sheet of the [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (13 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] proceedings of enquiry also reveals that copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner. Other judgments relied upon by the petitioner are also distinguishable on facts, hence, are not attracted in the obtaining facts and circumstances. 29. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity at every stage. She did not even file reply to the charge sheet to deny the charges levelled against her. The enquiry records demonstrate that repeated opportunities were granted, but the petitioner failed to cooperate. 30. As regards plea of mala fides raised by the petitioner, it is a well-settled principle of law that allegations of mala fides or bias against an Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings cannot be advanced in a casual, cursory or bald manner and such grave imputations shall not be entertained without there being cogent and tangible material substantiating the allegations. In the case of State of Bihar & Another vs P.P. Sharma, IAS & Another 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that mere assertion, vague or bald statement regarding mala fides is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts. 31. Applying the aforesaid principles, the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge this onerous burden. No specific details of any incident, conversation, prior grudge or apparent material have been pleaded or annexed to indicate that the Enquiry Officer was personally biased, annoyed or predisposed against the petitioner. The enquiry report stands fortified by unimpeachable [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (14 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] evidence, including witnesses testimonies and documents, which the petitioner has not impugned on merits. Further, the mere factum of the petitioner submitting an application, even prior to the initiation of the enquiry, seeking substitution of the Enquiry Officer, is wholly insufficient to draw any presumption of mala fides. Such a prayer, not supported by any facts or evidence of bias, is a routine procedural recourse and not tenable in the eye of law. 32. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence and cannot be characterised as perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioner’s attempt to invite this Court to re-evaluate the evidence or substitute a different factual conclusion is wholly impermissible in writ jurisdiction. 33. As regards the plea of proportionality, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the punishment is excessive or shocking. The petitioner has a long history of willful absence running into several years, for which she has been repeatedly punished by imposing minor as well as major penalties on six different occasions for similar allegations of absenteeism for as many as 1580 days. Undeterred by such earlier punishments, the petitioner did not show any improvement and similar misconduct was repeated by her. Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force like the police undermines discipline and efficiency. 34. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the gravity of misconduct, the past service record of the petitioner and the impact of her conduct on the discipline of the force. The penalty of compulsory retirement, in fact, reflects a lenient and sympathetic approach rather than a punitive one. [2026:RJ-JP:1070] (15 of 15) [CW-13813/2008] 35. Mere harshness of punishment is not a ground for judicial interference. Unless the punishment is such that no reasonable employer would impose it, this Court cannot substitute its own sense of proportionality. 36. This Court also finds no procedural impropriety, violation of statutory rules or breach of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry or the decision-making process. The Appellate and Reviewing authorities have independently examined the matter and passed reasoned orders. 37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit. The disciplinary authority has acted within its jurisdiction and the punishment imposed falls squarely within the permissible limits of administrative discretion. 38. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. 39. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /