The Rajasthan High Court has recently emphasized that disciplinary actions taken against a police constable who was allegedly on duty while intoxicated cannot be carried out without a proper evaluation of the evidence and the provision of valid reasons by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding at the Jaipur Bench, expressed the view that the contested orders lacked clear and comprehensive explanations, and the prescribed procedures outlined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules of 1958 were not followed during the investigation phase.

The court commented, "...The Disciplinary Authority failed to provide any rationale and did not even take into account the statement and arguments presented by the petitioner in response to the chargesheet. Consequently, the challenged order lacks a proper justification and the investigation conducted did not adhere to the procedure stipulated in the CCA Rules. In this investigation, the petitioner was deemed guilty of wandering in the Police Line campus after consuming alcohol."

In arriving at the aforementioned conclusion, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (UOI) (1990) 4 SCC 595 as a supporting precedent. This decision emphasized the principle that quasi-judicial authorities are obligated to issue orders that provide a clear and reasoned explanation for their decisions.  The apex court, in paragraph 38 of the mentioned order, highlighted that what's essential is for the reasons to be unambiguous and explicit, demonstrating that the authority has thoroughly considered the contentious issues. This requirement for recording reasons becomes even more important when an order is made at the initial stage of a case.

The High Court reiterated that providing mere 'one-line conclusions' is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice, as well as Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules of 1958. Rule 14 outlines the types of penalties that can be imposed on officials who have committed misconduct and the criteria that should be considered when determining these penalties. According to the High Court, the discretionary powers granted to the Disciplinary Authority to assess the seriousness and nature of the misconduct under Rule 14 are not without limits or all-encompassing.

In its order, the High Court emphasized that the discretion exercised by the authority responsible for imposing the penalty must be well-founded, lawful, and in accordance with established rules. It should not be arbitrary, unclear, or influenced by external factors such as rumors. The rules stipulate that "good and sufficient reasons" should be documented as the basis for imposing a penalty. When the Disciplinary Authority adopts a careless or nonchalant approach when issuing a punishment order, it does not meet the necessary standards of compliance with this provision.

The court further added that while the Enquiry Officer is not obligated to adhere to the strict rules of legal evidence, their report must be well-reasoned. Failing to provide a reasoned report renders the punishment order illegal. It's important to note that such reports do not need to be as detailed as a court order, as previously established in the S.N. Mukherjee case.

Based on the cited reasons, the court further emphasized that the order should include reasons that clearly demonstrate that the competent authority has carefully considered the evidence presented and the arguments put forth by the officials facing disciplinary action. In partially granting the writ petition, the court nullified the orders issued by the Superintendent of Police (Disciplinary Authority) and the Inspector General of Police (Appellate Authority). Additionally, the respondent authorities have been granted the option to commence a new disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, with a time limit of six months from the date they receive a certified copy of the court's order.

In the context of the case, on December 17, 2010, the constable was discovered in an intoxicated condition with injuries resulting from a fall in the Police Line Campus. The respondent authorities accused the petitioner of engaging in such misconduct while he was a member of the disciplined force, which was seen as a violation of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1971. The petitioner's defense was that he was dealing with a mental illness and that his fall on the day of the incident was a result of the impact of the medications he was taking.

The constable received a chargesheet for the alleged misconduct under Rule 17 of the 1958 Rules, and in 2011, he was penalized with the withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The Superintendent of Police, who found the petitioner guilty of misconduct, issued a brief, one-line order detailing the punishment. The appeal proceedings before the Inspector General of Police also concluded in a similar manner, which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 30 (Consideration of Appeals) of the 1958 Rules.

In response to these two orders, the petitioner sought judicial review of what they considered to be unjust or biased decisions by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case: Jasram Jat v. Inspector General of Police & Ors, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2012.