[2026:RJ-JP:24114] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8106/2002 URN: CW / 12459U / 2002 Feli Ram S/o Shri Banwarilal Meena, R/o Nayala Dhani Dhavli Via Kanota, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitesh Bagri For Respondent(s) : Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2026 Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and; (I) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 14.03.2000 and judgment/order dated 17.04.2000 may kindly be declared illegal, null and void and the same may kindly by quahsed and set-aside with all consequential benefits. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service. [2026:RJ-JP:24114] (2 of 3) [CW-8106/2002] (iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been discharged from service by the respondents vide order dated 14.03.2001 without holding any departmental enquiry, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and contrary to law. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein paras No.3 & 7, it has been mentioned as under:- “3. That contents of para No.3 of the writ petition are replied in the manner that the petitioner while he was under training, a leave for 10 days period 8 casual leave and 2 gazetted holiday was sanctioned and the petitioner should attend to report for his duty on 28.06.1999, but he remained absent willfully and he did not inform the higher authorities of the answering respondents. If the petitioner was ill he should be submitted the medical certificate and take the medicines and inform the department from time to time, but he did not do so willingly. It is wrong to state that the petitioner neither could report for duty nor he inform the respondents about his sickness. 7. That contents of para No.7 of the writ petition replied in the manner that the petitioner had been absent willfully from the duty from 29.06.1999 without informing the higher officials of the department. The petitioner’s conduct was not found good during probation period and under Rule 23-A of RSR, the respondent had discharged the petitioner from the service vide order dated 14.03.2000. The respondent i.e. [2026:RJ-JP:24114] (3 of 3) [CW-8106/2002] S.P. is empowered to use discretionary power, the petitioner was continuously absent from duty since 29.06.1999. Neither the petitioner submitted any medical report, nor he has intimated the respondent department. The respondent had dropped the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 after issuing the discharging order.” Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving as a probationer at the relevant point of time and after expiry of the sanctioned leave, he failed to report on duty and remained absent unauthorizedly from 29.06.1999 till 14.03.2000, therefore, the Appointing Authority i.e. Superintend of Police by invoking his power under Rule 23-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, discharged the petitioner from service vide order dated 14.03.2000. In my considered view, the petitioner was negligent for remaining absent from the duty for considerable long period and also considering the fact that the petitioner belongs to disciplinary forces, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Appointing Authority in dismissing the petitioner from service. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh/35