The Rajasthan High Court quashed a dismissal Order passed by the District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary Education and observed that the Disciplinary authority could not have proceeded on the assumption of the candidate’s guilt of appearing as a dummy candidate when neither the charge sheet nor the inquiry report suggested the same.

The Writ Petition before the High Court challenged the order whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services by the District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary Education, Jalore.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta asserted, “In the opinion of this Court, when there was no charge in the memorandum of charges relating to petitioner’s involvement as a dummy candidate and charge No.3 was only in relation to concealment from the respondents of his arrest in a criminal case…”

Advocate Lokesh Mathur represented the Petitioner while AAG SS Ladrecha represented the Respondent.

The petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a Junior Assistant (Clerk Grade II) with the respondents and was placed under suspension in the year 2019. A charge sheet came to be served upon him by way of a memorandum of charges. The Court's attention was also drawn to the order of dismissal.

It was the case of the Petitioner that it was a clear case of non-application of mind since neither in the memorandum of charges nor in the disciplinary proceedings, was any charge against the Petitioner in relation to him appearing as a dummy candidate in RPF SI Recruitment of 2018. No such finding ha been recorded. On such ground, it was submitted that the order be quashed.

On the contrary, it was the case of the Respondent-State that the disciplinary authority had taken into account the inquiry report and the relevant facts. It was submitted that the stipulation regarding the petitioner appearing as a dummy candidate was an inadvertent error, else the finding in relation to the petitioner’s guilt had been clearly recorded and noticed by the disciplinary authority.

On a perusal of the charge-sheet and the inquiry report, the Bench noticed that the charges against the petitioner were that of remaining absent from the duty without sanctioned leave and concealment of fact of arrest in a criminal case, which was registered against him under sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and sections 43, 66, 66D, 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Reference was also made to the memorandum of charges, an indication was given about the petitioner’s involvement in some criminal case but such a charge was only about the fact that he did not inform the authority about his arrest whereas, the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding of his guilt of appearing as dummy candidate in RPF SI Recruitment, 2018.

“...the disciplinary authority could not have proceeded on assumption of his guilt of appearing as a dummy candidate, more particularly, when neither the charge-sheet nor the inquiry report suggested the same”, the Bench said.

Referring to the impugned order, the Bench noticed that the same clearly demonstrated that the competent authority had not appreciated the factual matrix in its correct perspective and simply proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had appeared as a dummy candidate.

Finding the impugned order to be contrary to facts, the Bench quashed the same and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after considering the facts on record.

Allowing the Petition, the Bench said, “Needless to observe that consequent to quashment of punishment order dated 26.07.2024, petitioner shall be deemed to be in service. Petitioner’s services shall finally be governed by the fresh order to be passed by the disciplinary authority.”

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:250)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Lokesh Mathur

Respondents:AAG SS Ladrecha, Advocate DS Pidiyar

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Dinesh MehtaDisciplinary InquiryDummy CandidateInquiry Report

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.