HANUMAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the provisions and without conducting any enquiry under Rule 16/17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') the petitioner has been removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for an alleged incident which occurred on 4/2/2020 of which an audio clip stood viral on social media and solely on the basis of said audio clip the action has been taken by the respondent. Counsel submits that the respondent has invoked the powers contained under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 but no reasons for satisfaction have been recorded, that why it was not reasonably practicable to follow procedure prescribed under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that for the same incident one Head Constable Prasann Kathath was placed under suspension and thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. However, in the case of petitioner, respondent had subjected him to discrimination and the order impugned was passed against him. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned order the respondent have recorded the fact that the voice of the petitioner was tested by supplying the audio clip to Bajrang Singh, Om Prakash and Kailash Kumar. Counsel submits that the said Bajrang Singh was not present at the spot when the alleged incident has occurred rather he was undergoing some training on the fateful day and counsel submits that under these circumstances order impugned passed by the respondent is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(3.) Counsel submits that a discretion can not be exercised in an arbitrary manner, when the respondent has exercised their discretion for holding an enquiry against similarly situated person Prasann Kathath then it was necessary for the respondent to follow the same process in the case of the petitioner also. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13280/2019). Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted. Submissions by the respondent: