Refusing to interfere with a 10% lifetime pension cut imposed on three retired police officials who left the spot of a violent protest in 2011, after which a Sub-Inspector was attacked by a mob and died, the Rajasthan High Court held that the Disciplinary Authority had found grave negligence and had complied with the disciplinary rules.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order withholding 10% of the pension for life of three retired police officials found guilty of negligence for leaving the spot of a violent protest in Sawai Madhopur district in 2011, where a mob later attacked a Sub-Inspector who died after being set on fire, dismissing their writ petition challenging the order [Iftkharuddin Son of Jamaluddin and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others].
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the petition filed by Iftkharuddin, Govind Singh and Shri Chand Nehra, holding that the proceedings, which began before their retirement, could continue after it and that the Disciplinary Authority had complied with Rules 16(9) to 16(11) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.
The incident and the charge
On March 17, 2011, in Soorwal village of Sawai Madhopur district, protesters were demanding arrests following a murder. During the protest, a protester set himself on fire and jumped from a water tank. According to the Court’s record, the petitioners left the spot, a mob attacked a Sub-Inspector, and he died after being set on fire.
A charge-sheet dated April 13, 2012 was served under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules, alleging negligence in duty, namely that the petitioners fled the scene and thereby damaged the image of the police. The three retired in 2017, 2012 and 2019 respectively, while the proceedings were pending. The Enquiry Officer exonerated them on July 5, 2019, but the Disciplinary Authority recorded a disagreement note on May 30, 2025 and, by an order of March 23, 2026, withheld 10% of each petitioner’s pension for life.
The contentions
The petitioners argued that Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 applies only to grave misconduct or loss to the government, that the Disciplinary Authority did not record findings on each charge, that a delay of over six years was unexplained, and that the Governor’s consent and consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission were not obtained before the proceedings.
The State countered that Rule 7 applied because the charge-sheet was served before retirement, that the case concerned negligence, and that the Commission had been consulted before the impugned order was passed.
What the Court said
Justice Dhand held that Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules did not apply in its entirety to proceedings begun before retirement:
“the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 are not applicable in toto”
On the merits of the charge, the Court agreed with the Disciplinary Authority:
“there was grave negligence on the part of the petitioners in discharging their duties.”
The directions
The Court found that the Disciplinary Authority had recorded its reasons and comments on each charge and that there was full compliance with the procedure:
“This Court finds that there was full compliance of the provisions contained under Rules 16(9) to 16(11)”
Finding no error in the order of March 23, 2026, the Court rejected the petition and disposed of the stay application and all pending applications.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment reaffirms that a disciplinary proceeding validly begun while an employee is in service does not lapse on retirement, and that a pension cut imposed at its end is not defeated by the restrictions in Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, which govern proceedings instituted after retirement. For police personnel, it also shows that leaving the spot of a law-and-order situation can be treated as grave negligence in service law.
The case also illustrates how long such proceedings can run. The charge-sheet dated 2012 led to an order only in 2026, and the Court was nonetheless satisfied that the Disciplinary Authority had given reasons for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s exoneration and had dealt with each charge, which is what the procedural rules require.
Case Title: Iftkharuddin Son of Jamaluddin and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9337/2026]
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate G.S. Gautam with Advocates Saakshi Meena and Aratibai Meena for the petitioners; AGC Manju Joshi with Advocate Yash Soni, AGC Rahul Lodha with Advocate Priyansha Barwar, and DGC Vandana Sharma for the respondents