In a notable decision, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the dismissal of a retired constable for submitting a forged marksheet at the time of his recruitment was excessive given his 38 years of unblemished service. The court observed that the punishment must align with the severity of the misconduct, setting aside the removal order while maintaining financial recoveries.
Case Background
The petitioner, Prithvi Raj, aged 61, served as a constable in the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Rajasthan from his appointment on October 22, 1982, until his superannuation on April 30, 2018. A charge sheet was issued to him on September 11, 2013, alleging that he had submitted a forged marksheet from the Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Bhopal, during recruitment.
The disciplinary authority, after a departmental inquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, found him guilty and ordered his dismissal from service on March 17, 2020. Additionally, the authority directed the recovery of his salary and allowances paid post-superannuation. His appeal against this decision was rejected on September 15, 2022, leading him to file the current writ petition.
Legal Issues Raised
- Disproportionality of Punishment: The primary argument raised by the petitioner, represented by Advocates Vikas Bijarnia and Sunil Fageria, was that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct. They highlighted his unblemished service record and argued for leniency.
- Scope of Judicial Intervention: The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to revise the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, asserting that the dismissal did not correspond to the gravity of the misconduct.
Observations and Judgment
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, after hearing arguments from both sides, emphasized the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct. He noted the following key points:
- The petitioner had an unblemished service record spanning 38 years.
- The charge of submitting a forged marksheet was a serious matter, but the misconduct occurred at the time of recruitment and did not affect his subsequent service performance.
The court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate, stating, “Punishment needs to match the misconduct, particularly when the petitioner’s entire career reflects zeal and dedication.”
Court’s Decision
The court quashed the dismissal order dated March 17, 2020, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner’s service benefits up to his superannuation date of April 30, 2018. However, the financial recovery ordered for the period post-superannuation was upheld.
The court clarified that any recovery amount would be adjusted while calculating his service benefits, which were to be settled within three months of the order.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: Prithvi Raj, represented by Advocates Vikas Bijarnia and Sunil Fageria.
- Respondents: The State of Rajasthan and officers of the ACB, represented by Additional Advocate General B.L. Bhati, assisted by Advocate Sandeep Soni.
