[2026:RJ-JP:21379] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13146/2022 Maya, Female Constable No. 753, Presently Posted At S.p. Office, Dholpur W/o Ramkumar Singh Tomar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Anand Nagar, Saipu Road, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Dholpur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13140/2022 Usha, Female Constable No. 750, Presently Posted At S.p. Office, Dholpur W/o Hirendra Singh, R/o Gaushala, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Distt. Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma for Mr. Mahendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/05/2026 1. Issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical in nature, hence, both the writ petitions were tagged and have been heard together so also would stand decided by this common order. 2. Vide common order dated 29.02.2012, passed by Superintendent of Police, District Dholpur, as many as 9 Police Personnels including both the petitioners were held guilty for the charge of negligence, indiscipline and undue dereliction of duty since one hardcore handcuffed criminal eloped on 11.06.2010 [2026:RJ-JP:21379] (2 of 4) [CW-13146/2022] during his visit with other criminals from District Jail Dholpur to Baadi Court under the supervision of Challani Guard escort comprising of 9 Police Personnels. In-charge of the Challani Guard has been saddled with punishment of stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect and other Police Personnels have been inflicted punishment of stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect. 3. Both petitioners, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 9 years 5 months and 14 days, preferred departmental appeal against the punishment order dated 29.02.2012, which came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 15.11.2021 and the review application filed thereagainst, after a delay of 3 years, has also been dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2022. Hence, questioning the orders dated 29.02.2012, 15.11.2021 and 09.02.2022, these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioners. 4. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were assigned the duties to escort 11 criminals and both were part of the Challani Guard team of 9 Police Personnels. It is further not in dispute that out of 11 criminals, one criminal succeeded in fleeing and ran away on a motorcycle. The Inquiry Officer, having considered the documents and evidence which came on record, recorded fact findings and held the entire team of Challani Guard guilty for misconduct and negligent in performing their duties, which resulted in diminishing/tarnishing the image of police in the public at large. Thereafter, punishment has been inflicted, considering the nature of duties/work assigned to the Challani Guard. [2026:RJ-JP:21379] (3 of 4) [CW-13146/2022] 5. It is not a case of petitioners that the Disciplinary Inquiry, pursuant to the charge-sheet, suffers from any procedural lapses or either the charge-sheet was issued by any incompetent authority or opportunity to defend the charges was not accorded. From the record, it is well evident that the charge-sheet was duly served upon the petitioners; they submitted their defence and were granted opportunity of defending charges; evidences by the Inquiry Officer were recorded in their presence and due opportunity to adduce the defence evidence was also accorded as much as opportunity of personal hearing was also extended. 6. Scope of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere in the proceedings of Departmental Enquiry and decision thereof, is extremely narrow and the High Court does not act like an Appellate Court nor the writ jurisdiction is akin to the Appellate jurisdiction. It is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and to reach its own conclusion, rather the power of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and not against the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. In such type of matters, High Court may grant indulgence where the departmental authorities conducted the process against the delinquent in violation to the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or inflagrant violation of the rules of natural justice or some extraneous considerations have been considered beside the evidence on record to arrive at the decision. The case of petitioners do not fall in either of the categories, hence, no interference is warranted against the impugned orders. [2026:RJ-JP:21379] (4 of 4) [CW-13146/2022] 7. It would be suffice to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. reported in [(2009) 15 SCC 620], wherein the principles enunciated in case of State of A.P. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao: [(1975) 2 SCC 557] were followed and reiterated prescribing the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of disciplinary proceedings and decision thereof. 8. In addition thereto, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioners may also not be considered as disproportionate to the nature of charges of negligence and dereliction in performing the duties by a Police Personnel. 9. In respect of delay, it is explicit from the record that petitioners did not explain the inordinate delay of 9 years 5 months and 14 days in filing departmental appeal against the punishment order, hence, in the order of Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, no interference is warranted. 10. For the discussion and enunciation made hereinabove, net outcome is that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and writ petitions being devoid of substance are hereby dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/1&2