SBCWP5703/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5703/2010 Rahul Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 12.05.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by three petitioners challenging their suspension order as well as charge-sheet issued to them. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners' conduct was such for which they should have been rewarded but the respondents have instead placed them under suspension and subjected them to disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that petitioners suffered bullet injuries and had to be hospitalized on account of such injuries. It cannot be said that escape of dacoit Mukesh Thakur took place on account of any negligent act on the part of petitioners, who were given his custody for producing him in the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Dholpur. It is contended that petitioners were suspended way back on 17.09.2009 and nothing has happened in the disciplinary proceedings after issuance of charge-sheet in March, 2010. It is a case of victimization. If the petitioners perceive that they are being victimized rather than being rewarded for the act of SBCWP5703/2010 // 2 // their bravery or otherwise, they should approach the senior functionaries of the police department such as Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur or the Director General Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, because the charges against them are also to the effect that they gave the facility to the escaped accused Mukesh of having conversation with his relatives over cellphone and then the said dacoit with the help of his companions was able to flee from their custody and that also snatched two rifles with hundred bullets issued to them. They thus brought a bad name to the police department. Merely because the petitioners sustained injuries in the same incident, this court cannot command the respondents not to even hold disciplinary proceedings against petitioners, when the respondents hold that there are sufficient reasons to enquire into the allegations of negligence on their part of petitioners. In any case, this decision has been taken at the level of the Superintending of Police. The petitioners would be obviously at liberty to approach senior officers of Police, by making a suitable representation, who could examine the matter to find out whether or not, if at all it was a case of negligence or victimization. I therefore do not find any good reason to interfere in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, however, with the aforesaid observations. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//