Rule 19(ii) Inquiry Dispensed Without Reasons: Raj HC

Dispensing With Inquiry Needs Disclosed Reasons: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Constable's Dismissal Under Rule 19(ii)

Published: 12 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a police constable's dismissal ordered without any inquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, holding the use of that power illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The allegation that he used objectionable language on a phone call could be proved only after an inquiry, and the reasons for dispensing with it were disclosed neither in the order nor to the Court (para 15).

Key holdings

Dismissal while the preliminary enquiry into the same allegation was still pending undercut the claim that an inquiry was impracticable (paras 9-10).

Who made the alleged call needed an inquiry, including forensic voice verification, which the petitioner himself sought (paras 10, 12).

The reasons for dispensing with the inquiry appeared neither in the dismissal order nor before the Court (paras 12, 15).

A gross violation of natural justice allows a writ petition despite an available departmental appeal (paras 17-19).

The respondents remain free to hold a regular inquiry under the 1958 Rules (para 20).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a constable under the Superintendent of Police, Tonk, was suspended on 24.10.2021 in contemplation of an inquiry and reinstated on 17.02.2022 with the inquiry kept pending (para 2). A preliminary enquiry into the allegation that he used objectionable language in a cell-phone conversation with a higher departmental authority was entrusted to the Circle Officer, Malpura on 01.12.2021 (paras 3, 9). While it was pending, the Superintendent of Police dismissed him on 08.04.2022, invoking Rule 19(ii) to dispense with the inquiry as not reasonably practicable (para 3). By a letter of the same date the Superintendent asked the Dy.S.P. to conclude the preliminary enquiry, and on 25.08.2022 the petitioner was called to appear in it (para 9).

Court's Findings

The preliminary enquiry was still under way when the dismissal order was issued (para 9). With no cogent material before it, the Court could not accept that following the prescribed procedure was unreasonable or impracticable (para 10). Whether the petitioner, or someone falsely using his identity, made the call could be ascertained only by a full-fledged inquiry, including forensic verification of his voice; he had himself sought a voice-sample test and was not shown to have refused one (paras 10, 12). Rule 19(ii) was framed in view of clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2), yet the respondents' reply disclosed no reason for the Disciplinary Authority's satisfaction (paras 11-12). Relying on Tulsiram Patel and Ramesh Chandra, the Court held the exercise of the power illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional: the facts did not justify dispensing with the inquiry, the allegations could be proved only after an inquiry, and the material and reasons were disclosed neither in the order nor to the Court (paras 13-15). As the dismissal grossly violated natural justice, the objection of an alternative appeal remedy was overruled under the Whirlpool exceptions (paras 17-19).

Legal Principle

A disciplinary authority may dispense with the inquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the 1958 Rules only where holding it is not reasonably practicable and the reasons are shown; where the charge can be proved only through an inquiry, a dismissal without one violates natural justice and can be challenged directly in writ jurisdiction (paras 12, 15, 17-18).

Precedents Relied Upon

Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13, 14, 15
Explains when an inquiry may be dispensed with under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) and analogous service rules: the test is reasonable practicability, the reason must be recorded and not be vague, and the courts may strike down an order dispensing with the inquiry on judicial review.
Ramesh Chandra v. The Tonk Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Tonk & Anr. 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 733
Followed Discussed at ¶ 14, 15
An order passed after dispensing with the inquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the 1958 Rules was quashed where nothing showed that a regular inquiry was not reasonably practicable and the power was used only to avoid holding one.
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. 1998 (8) SCC 1
Applied Discussed at ¶ 17, 18
A writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative statutory remedy where, among other exceptions, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

View all precedents (4)

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Limited 2021 SCC Online SC 884
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17, 18
Reiterates the exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule set out in Whirlpool Corporation.

Dispensing With Inquiry Needs Disclosed Reasons: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Constable's Dismissal Under Rule 19(ii)

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court