The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment, has quashed the dismissal of Constable Dinesh Kumar Meena, observing that the state’s decision was based on “irrelevant considerations” and reflected a “lack of confidence in its own system.” The court directed his reinstatement within 30 days, while allowing the authorities to proceed against him in accordance with the law.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to Constable Dinesh Kumar Meena, who was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, through an order dated September 7, 2020. The order invoked Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958, which allows dismissal without an inquiry when it is “not reasonably practicable” to conduct one.
Meena was accused of escorting a vehicle transporting narcotic substances, which was later seized, leading to the registration of FIR No. 101/2020. However, he was never charge-sheeted in the case. His appeal against the dismissal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on December 10, 2021, leading him to file the present writ petition before the High Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised several important legal questions:
Validity of Dismissal Under Rule 19(ii): The key contention was whether the authorities were justified in dismissing Meena without following the due process prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules.
Necessity of Disciplinary Inquiry: The petitioner argued that the disciplinary inquiry under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958 was wrongfully dispensed with.
Violation of Constitutional Safeguards: Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides safeguards against arbitrary dismissal of government servants. The court examined whether these protections were upheld in Meena’s case.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while delivering the judgment, strongly criticized the approach taken by the authorities, stating that their justification for invoking Rule 19(ii) was “not relevant.” The court noted:
“The possibility that the inquiry is likely to take substantial time cannot be a reason to do away with the inquiry. That apart, respondents’ apprehension that the petitioner would influence the inquiry and tamper with the evidence is reflective of respondent Department’s lack of confidence in its own system.”
The court further observed that if such reasoning were upheld, the entire procedure for disciplinary inquiry would become redundant.
On the matter of tampering with evidence, the court remarked:
“If the respondents feel that the petitioner, who is a Constable, would influence the inquiry and tamper with evidence, they should introspect their working.”
The judgment also highlighted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider whether the disciplinary authority had lawfully exercised its discretion under Rule 19(ii). Instead, it merely focused on the severity of the misconduct, which was not a valid justification.
Court’s Decision
The High Court ruled in favor of Meena and quashed both the dismissal order dated September 7, 2020, and the appellate order dated December 10, 2021. The court directed that:
Meena be reinstated within 30 days.
He shall be treated as being in service, with notional benefits for the intervening period.
The state retains the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him following the due process of law.
Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel voluntarily stated that Meena would not claim salary for the intervening period, adhering to the principle of “no work, no pay.”
