Shocking: Rajasthan HC Reinstates Head-Constable Dismissed For Merely Being Related To Candidate Who Used Imposter In Recruitment Race

Terming the facts of the case as “shocking”, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the dismissal of a head constable, for being the uncle of a man who used an imposter to take part in a race which was part of the constable recruitment process.

Justice Dinesh Mehta perused the records and said that the State was hell-bent on removing the petitioner without there being even an "iota" of evidence against him who was just made a "scapegoat" for simply being related to the delinquent candidate. It said. 

"Though, the charge no.2 was not as serious but mere publication of a news of a dummy candidate taking part in the race cannot be a reason enough to hold the petitioner guilty of tarnishing the image of the Police Department. No evidence in this regard seems to have been led and curiously enough, the purported news report too have not been made part of the record. Ignoring such vital aspect and sans any evidence, the inquiry officer has concluded that publication of the news has dented the reputation of the Police Department. Such finding strengthens the opinion of the Court that the respondents were hell-bent to scoop the petitioner out of the services". 

The court further said, "The petitioner had been made a scapegoat, simply because he was related to the candidate Naresh - the petitioner has been penalised rather victimised for the fault of his nephew for no reasons or rhyme". 

The petitioner's nephew took part in the recruitment process for the constable and was found to be using an imposter in its race. An FIR was filed against the nephew, the imposter as well as the petitioner. Clean chit was given to the petitioner in the 1^st preliminary enquiry. Not being satisfied, State ordered another inquiry in which even although it was found that petitioner was not present at the location of the race, an apprehension was expressed that he was in a position to help the nephew.

In this light, petitioner was placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceedings were launched against him for conniving with the nephew. Based on the inquiry report, the charges were proved, and the petitioner was dismissed from services.

There were two charges levelled against the petitioner–first, related to the petitioner's alleged involvement in connivance with a view to give undue advantage to his nephew – Naresh along with the impostor Sukhdev who took part in the race. The second charge related to dent in the image of the department due to publication of such news in the newspapers.

After hearing the contentions, and perusing the records, the Court highlighted that all the witnesses had denied petitioner's presence at the location of the race and in this light the fact that the charges were proved against the petitioner could not be countenanced. It was opined that it was apparent that the inquiry officer had given an absolutely erroneous and untenable report based on hypothesis in absence of any material evidence.

“On carefully wading through the inquiry report, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the inquiry report is not only based on conjuncture and surmises but is a complete misreading of oral and ocular evidence. It has traversed way beyond the evidence and reached to an extent of being branded 'false'. The so called reason given by the inquiry officer in his report is that the petitioner was related to the candidate-Naresh and he used his position and connived to give undue influence to him.”

Furthermore, the Court opined that the only reason given in the inquiry report was that the petitioner was related to the delinquent candidate which was not revealed to the higher authorities, and this position was used to give undue advantage to the nephew. Stating this conclusion to be absolutely unfounded, the Court held that,

“if a 'Head-Constable' in the Police Department can be so influential that he can manage rather maneuver the affairs in the manner, then, the respondents should introspect their working and ponder over the sanctity of their recruitment process.” Thus charge 1 levelled against petitioner cannot be proved the court said. 

Furthermore, the Court observed that it was necessary to prove some nexus between the petitioner and the imposter and despite being the police department, the respondents could not do the same without which the charges could not be sustained.

The court finally held that the only possible reason behind holding the petitioner guilty was his failure to inform the authorities about his relation to the delinquent candidate. However, firstly, there was no charge framed to this effect, and secondly, the petitioner was not deployed at the location of the race. Hence, there was no fault on petitioner's part in not informing about his relation to the delinquent candidate.

In the background it was held that no man of reasonable prudence could conclude petitioner's guilt. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to reinstate the petitioner within 30 days and pay him 50% of his salary and emolument for the period of dismissal.

Title: Rajaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

Click Here To Read/Download Order