Rajasthan High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Constables Dismissed Without Regular Enquiry Over Accused's Escape From Custody
Nupur Aggarwal
14 Jan 2026 2:40 PM IST
Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of three constables, dismissed from service without conduct of regular enquiry under State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after two accused absconded from their custody charged with looting.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that merely the nature of offence committed by the absconded accused could not be a determining factor for exercising powers under Rule 19 of the Rules.
The Court observed that it was a settled position of law that even though the delinquent people may be accused of heinous misconduct, they had minimum right to face regular enquiry so that they could put forward their defence.
While the petitioners were holding the post of constable, they were assigned with the responsibility of taking two accused for their appearance before Court. At that time, they escaped from the custody of the petitioners.
Preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioners, and merely based on its report, powers under Rule 19 of the Rules were exercised by the State. The petitioners were saddled with the harshest penalty of dismissal without conducting regular enquiry.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that the gravity of the misconduct by the petitioners was reflected from the charges faced by the accused, who were facing trial for committing the heinous offence of loot. Hence, the act of the petitioners put the reputation of the police department at stake.
It was submitted that the petitioners should have been more vigilant, and rather it was on account of their collusion that the accused were able to abscond.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that, “…the reasons which have been assigned in the penalty order dated 18.12.2006 are that as the absconded accused were facing the charge of committing grave offence of loot, therefore, conducting regular enquiry under the Rules of 1958 would not be feasible, hence, it would be proper to exercise powers under Rule 19 (2) of the Rules of 1958. Such reasons assigned in the penalty order for dispensing with enquiry are neither reasonable, nor justifiable.”
It was observed that merely the nature of offence committed by the accused who absconded from the custody of the petitioner could not be a factor to determine exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the Rules.
Accordingly, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the State was directed to reinstate the petitioners, with the liberty of conducting regular enquiry.
Title: Mohan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 15