Honble SHETHNA, J.–Issue notice to respondent. Mr. Hemant Srimali, Panel lawyer was directed to accept notice. Mr. Goyal was directed to supply copy of special appeal as well as main writ petition with Annexures, which he has already supplied to Mr. Srimali. (2). At the joint request and with the consent of learned counsel for the respondent, the matter is finally decided. (3). The appellant original petitioner is the Head-constable. He was appointed on the post of Constable by order dated 17.5.77 and later on promoted as Head-Constable on 22.6.91. (4). On 17.7.97, respondent No.1, D.S.P. Sriganganagar issued charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short `the Rules). The charge against the petitioner was that he directed constable Om Prakash to sent telephonic message to the Police Station Lalgarh Jatan for effecting arrest of the accused persons. Because of that, the public gathered there and staged `Dharna and raised slogans. (5). He submitted his reply and stated that he has not committed any such misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet and requested the D.S.P. to drop the proceedings. However, the Disciplinary Authority D.S.P. by its order dated 28.11.97 (Annex.10) found the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him and imposed penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect. (6). Aggrieved of that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2, D.I.G. Bikaner who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 28.8.98 (Annex. 11). Hence, he challenged the aforesaid order at Annex.10 and 11 before this Court by way of writ petition No. 509/99. The same was dismissed in limine by the learned single Judge of this Court on 18.2.99. Hence this special appeal. (7). The learned counsel Shri Goyal for the petitioner vehemently submitted that first of all no misconduct was committed by the petitioner in asking Omprakash to inform the police for arresting the accused, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were not at all justified. He submitted that the appellant discharged his duty, therefore, it cannot be said to be a misconduct. (8). Before appreciating the aforesaid argument, we would like to narrate few important facts which are as under: (9). He submitted that the appellant discharged his duty, therefore, it cannot be said to be a misconduct. (8). Before appreciating the aforesaid argument, we would like to narrate few important facts which are as under: (9). Criminal Case No. 47/97 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 488, 380, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. alongwith Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The investigation was being done by the police and during the investigation, it was found that Raja Ram, Jai Karan, Bittu, Shishpal, Ranveer and Raju alias Rajan Singh were involved in the commission of the offences. Therefore, Circle Officer (Rural), Sri Ganganagar who was investigating the case sought permission of his Superintendent of Police i.e. respondent No.1 for arresting those accused and the permission was also granted to arrest the accused on 29.5.97 (Annex.5). (10). Under the aforesaid background, if we appreciate the charge levelled against him, then in our considered opinion, the appellant petitioner has not committed any misconduct. (11). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Hemant Srimali, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to defend the impugned orders Annex.10 and 11 passed by the D.S.P. and the D.I.G., Bikaner respectively. (12). Before parting, we must state that here is the person who has dotless career of more than 23 years of service. This type of proceedings initiated against any police personnels may demoralize their moral. Merely because there was some Dharnas or slogans raised by the Public on the arrest of the accused that should not be a ground in such type of cases for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the police personnels. When there is a malafide intention or ulterior motive behind the arrest, then only proceedings should be initiated and such officers be punished, otherwise not. (13). In view of the abovediscussions, we allow the present special appeal and accept the writ petition No. 509/99 filed by the appellant-petitioner and set aside the impugned orders Annex. 10 and 11.