Shubham Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Daulat Singh Shekhawat, vs The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,

Judgment

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home And Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. Director General Of Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police (Admn,), Acb, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19283/2022 Jitendra Mahawar S/o Late Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o E-29, Vijay Nagar, Behind Bank Of Baroda, Agra Road, Jaipur Versus ----Petitioner

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Home And Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. Director General Of Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police (Admn.) Acb, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Shubhendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/05/2025

1. Since, both the aforementioned writ petitions involve almost similar facts and points of law, hence, are being decided by this common order. [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (2 of 9) [CW-19404/2022]

2. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19404/2022 have been taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy.

3. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Administration) whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated in exercise of powers under Rule 23-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, (for short, ‘RSR’) the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

4. Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 25.09.2018 on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father, who unfortunately died while he was in service. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once any employee is appointed in view of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, he is treated to be a regular employee and cannot be termed as a probationer. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the respondents could have invoked 23-A of RSR for dispensing with the services of the petitioner by showing the same to be unsatisfactory.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17877/2018) decided on 20.05.2019, Kanhaiya Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (2) WLC (Raj.) 386 and Dinesh [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (3 of 9) [CW-19404/2022] Kumar Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2018 (3) WLC (Raj,) 48.

6. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2022 as well as for a direction against the respondents to reinstate him along with all consequential benefits.

7. Per contra, Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG has indicated that it would reveal by pursuing appointment order dated 25.09.2018 that the petitioner was appointed on a probation of two years. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has joined his services after accepting the aforesaid terms regarding probation mentioned in the appointment order, hence, now at this stage, he cannot be allowed to raise a different plea that he was never appointed on probation.

8. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG further submits that the respondent-Government is well within its rights to monitor the services of an employee, who was appointed on probation, during the entire probation period and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was habitual absentee and has remained absent for as many as 191 days during the probation period in quite unauthorized and willful manner. Hence, before passing the impugned order, the respondents have examined the record of the petitioner and have come to the conclusion that the services rendered by the petitioner were not satisfactory.

9. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG has also submitted that once the petitioner was appointed on probation basis, either before extending the probation or before confirming his services, the [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (4 of 9) [CW-19404/2022] respondents can examine the record and in case of unsatisfactory services, the services of the concerned employee can be dispensed with. It has also been submitted on behalf of State that mere mention of wrong provision i.e. Rule 23-A of Rajasthan Service Rule (RSR) would not make any difference, as the respondents have rightly exercised their power to examine the record of the probationer and have passed the order solely on the ground that the services of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG has also raised an objection that it was prime obligation of the petitioner to come out with clean hands in the instant writ petitions, yet the petitioner has deliberately concealed that before passing the impugned order, so many notices pointing out their willful absence were given to them however, suppressing all these facts, the petitioner has simply stated as if their services have been terminated without following principles of natural justice and in violation of procedure prescribed in law.

10. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in 2006 12 SCC 418 in order to show that the order impugned was simplicitor in nature and has been passed while the petitioner was in probation, therefore, there was no requirement of conducting any enquiry whatsoever.

11. I have examined the record of the writ petition and carefully heard both the learned counsels. [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (5 of 9) [CW-19404/2022]

12. This is a matter of record that petitioner was appointed, although under the scheme of granting compassionate appointment, on probation basis of two years and such condition of appointing him on probation has never been challenged by the petitioner. Thus at this stage, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not required to be placed on probation and being an appointee under the scheme of compassionate appointment, the respondents ought to have considered his services as confirmed right from the day one.

13. Be that as it may, it is settled proposition of law that even in the cases where an employee has been appointed on probation basis, his services cannot be considered to be purely temporary in nature. Hence, even a probationer is also entitled for protection under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeals) Rules, 1958 as well as the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

14. It would come out from perusing the documents enclosed along with reply to the writ petition that the petitioner has remained absent in regular interval on number of occasions and only on account of such allegations, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 12.12.2022. Thus, composite reading of the impugned order and reply to the writ petition would reveal that the order dated 12.12.2022 is stigmatic in nature.

15. In order to press his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Ratan Singh (supra) in which this Court, after considering the earlier judgment of [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (6 of 9) [CW-19404/2022] Dinesh Kumar Meena (supra), has observed that probation is also regular mode of selection, therefore, a probationer cannot be treated as temporary employee and he cannot be removed from service by invoking Rule 23-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

16. The impugned order dated 12.12.2022 nowhere reveals that while passing the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2022, the respondents have either exercised their power to dispense with the services of probationer after examining his record during probation, nor does it reveal service of any notice or grant of opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order dated

12.12.2022.

17. It is also relevant to refer provisions of Rule 23-A of RSR, which are as under: " 1[(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), the service of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. (b). The period of such notice shall be one month; provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. 2[(2) (a) The service of a temporary Government servant who has been in continuous Government service for more than three years and who satisfied the suitability in respect of age and qualification prescribed for the post and has been appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (7 of 9) [CW-19404/2022] Commission where such consultation is necessary, shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of three months given in writing either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before the termination of his service for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, as the case may be. (b) Where reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service, termination of service consequent upon the reduction of posts in the cadre under the appointing authority shall take place in the order of Juniority.]"

18. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would make it clear that such rule can be applied only in the case of temporary employee and on the basis of the aforesaid judgments of Ratan Singh and Dinesh Kumar Meena(supra) it can be safely held that the probationer cannot be treated as a temporary employee.

19. So far as Rules governing a probationer is concerned, Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) regulates the terms and conditions of probation under Rules 30 and 37 of the Rules of 1951. Either from order dated 12.12.2022 or even from other documents on record, it does not come out that at any point of time, the respondents have ever examined the case of the petitioner in view of Rule 37 of RSR.

20. Hence, the defence put forward by learned AAG on behalf of the State, that order dated 12.12.2022 is in fact order of dispensing with services of a probation rather than treating it to [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (8 of 9) [CW-19404/2022] be terminating the services of a temporary employee, is totally baseless and unfounded, therefore such defence is not sustainable in the eye of law.

21. As regards objection raised by Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG that the petitioner has not revealed about issuance of so many notices to the petitioner requiring him to join duties, although while approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no doubt that the petitioner is required to place on record each and every relevant detail, however, in the instant case where order dated 12.12.2022 in itself is a vague and non-speaking order, and a neat question of law regarding applicability of Rule 23-A is involved in this case, it cannot be said that merely on account of not submitting the details of the notices, the writ petition can be rejected. In the light of above discussion, reference of such notices was not at all relevant.

22. In view of above, this Court is satisfied that powers under Rule 23-A of RSR has wrongly been exercised by the respondents in order to dispense with the services of the petitioner. Hence, order dated 12.12.2022 is hereby quashed.

23. However, mere quashing of aforesaid order dated

12.12.2022 would not preclude the respondent-Government from taking action against the petitioner in respect of any misconduct, if committed by him; or even from exercising in powers under Rule 37 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Respondents are at liberty to take any such action against the petitioner in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:19228] (9 of 9) [CW-19404/2022]

24. The respondents are directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner with continuity of service and other consequential benefits on notional basis. Compliance of this order will be made within a period of three months.

25. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed.

26. Stay application(s) and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

27. A copy of this order be also placed in connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19283/2022. NEERU/219-220 (ANAND SHARMA),J