BENCH AT JAIPUR v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 613/2021 Arjun Lal S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rajgarh, Via Sardhana, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan). Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 614/2021 Hardeep Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Kishan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Kalayanpura, Post Sewa, Tehsil Mouzmabad, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 615/2021 Sunil Kumar Dangi, S/o Shri Ranveer Siwan Dangi, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Narhar, Tehsil - Chirawa, [2026:RJ-JP:5810-DB] (2 of 30) [SAW-612/2021] District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 616/2021

Phool Chand S/o Shri Jayram Prajapat, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Tekari, Tara Grah Road, Behind Kanak House, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 617/2021 Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Rohitash, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Rajora Post Mandri Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan). Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 618/2021 Gopal Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Ji Lal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rajpura Tehsil Malpura District Tonk (Rajasthan) Versus ----Appellant

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) [2026:RJ-JP:5810-DB] (3 of 30) [SAW-612/2021]

2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AGC and Mr. Shivam Chauhan, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments

03.02.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved

03.02.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full part is pronounced

4. Date of pronouncement

27.02.2026 Per, Ravi Chirania, J:-

1. These writ petitions are decided by this common order, as the facts and issues involved in these writ petitions are common. For convenience, the facts are taken from Special Appeal Writ No. 612/2021.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners' for short) whereby they have challenged the judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which their writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5600/2021, 5573/2021, 5576/2021, 5601/2021, 5602/2021, 5603/2021, 5604/2021, 5605/2021, 5606/2021 & 5608/2021 were dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not considered the [2026:RJ-JP:5810-DB] (4 of 30) [SAW-612/2021] preliminary report and the other evidence on record, which is sufficient to show that, in the entire incident, none of the petitioners herein were responsible in any manner and further there was no intentional negligence or dereliction of duties on their part. Learned counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer also did not consider the complete facts and found the charges proved and by considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority punished them with the stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect as mentioned in the punishment order dated 04.04.2018.

4. Learned counsel submitted that against the punishment order dated 04.04.2018, the petitioners filed the Departmental appeal under Rule 30A of the CCA Rules, 1958 along-with other similarly situated persons namely Anil Kumar Pandey, Phool Chand & Dharmesh Dayma etc. The charges against all the delinquent employees including the petitioners herein were almost same, in respect of the same incident, the Enquiry Officer also found the charges to be proved against all and passed the order of punishment, however, the Appellate Authority dismissed the departmental appeals filed by the petitioners herein and the punishment order was maintained. However, in the case of the other similarly situated persons namely Anil Kumar Pandey, Dharmesh Dayma & Shambu Singh, different yardsticks were followed and their appeals were allowed and were exonerated from all the charges.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that except the Commando Shakti Singh, not before the Court, all police persons who were inside the police van were carrying the criminal Anand Pal Singh, had no idea about his (Commando Shakti Singh's) involvement with the criminal in van and his associated groups. Despite seriousness of the charges as levelled against all the persons, the specific findings of the Enquiry [2026:RJ-JP:5810-DB] (5 of 30) [SAW-612/2021] Officer and the after consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the punishment order, the Appellate Authority exonerated the above three persons while maintaining the punishment order in respect of all the petitioners herein.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with by the Appellant Authority until and unless there are reasons to do so and the same are required to be recorded while quashing the punishment order. The complete findings as recorded by the Appellate Authority are illegal, arbitrary and a classic case of applying different yardsticks in the case of employees having the same charges in respect of the same incident.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that against the order of the Appellant Authority of dismissing the departmental appeal, the petitioners filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, which were dismissed in limine by order dated 18.05.2021. The learned Single Judge by considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. P. Gunasekaran1 and Industrial Security Force & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali2, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the above settled law does not permit interference in the departmental proceedings and that the Courts cannot substitute a punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the Court.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions in limine failed to consider the fact that the similarly situated persons namely Anil Kumar Pandey, Dharmesh Dayma & Shambu Singh were exonerated by allowing their departmental appeals, whereas the petitioners herein have been