In a recent decision, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the removal of a constable from the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC)  who was also a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and was found to be in a live-in relationship with a married woman. 

The decision was given by Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur's single-judge bench just prior to his retirement from the position. He in the case emphasized upon the importance of adherence to the prescribed government employee conduct rules in the context of Indian mythological narratives.

The petitioner, identified as Hari Singh, challenged his dismissal from service, arguing that he has the right to live his personal life according to his own wishes and that his employer cannot dictate his personal life choices. In his defense, Singh cited Indian mythological narratives.

However, Justice Gaur, stating a crucial judgment, rejected Singh's arguments, stating, "This court finds that, in view of the legal provisions governing the prescribed conduct rules, a government employee cannot be allowed to engage in unethical conduct by invoking Indian mythological narratives. The law is statutory, and if certain conduct rules are prescribed by the rule-making authority for a government employee, they cannot be examined based on practices prevalent in other countries or with reference to Indian mythological narratives."

The court's decision is based on the principle that government employees are bound by specific rules that govern their conduct both within and outside working hours. The judge emphasized that government servants, as public servants, should maintain high standards in both their personal and public lives.

Justice Gaur firmly stated, "Deviation from the standards or conduct rules prescribed by the employer to maintain high standards cannot be allowed for a government employee to claim rights over their personal life." "Granting unrestricted rights to a government employee to live their personal life in an unethical manner during office hours does not come within the realm of permissible actions for such government employees."

In Hari Singh's case, the court found that he was living with a married woman in government quarters while failing to maintain lawful contact with his legally wedded wife and children. Therefore, the court concluded that the disciplinary authority had rightfully dismissed Singh on grounds of grave misconduct and indiscipline.

The court cited legal precedents to support its decision, including examples where departmental inquiry proceedings also encompass judicial review, limited to procedural fairness, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court sends a clear message that government employees should adhere to prescribed conduct rules, and such rules should not be disregarded by invoking Indian mythological narratives or cultural practices.

Case: Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18980/2017.