Order : 1. By way of present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.11.2021, whereby petitioners have been dismissed from services by invoking Rule 19 (ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’). 2. Mr. Jayram Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by order dated 15.11.2021, the petitioners were placed under suspension followed by the order impugned dated 24.11.2021, whereby they were dismissed from service. 3. He argued that the respondent no. 4 has proceeded in undue haste and has dismissed the petitioners from services regardless of the fact that the conditions mentioned in Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 were totally absent. 4. Learned counsel argued that the reason given by the respondents while dismissing the petitioners from services that if the petitioners are not removed, it would encourage such acts and would leave adverse impact on the discipline of the police force, are not relevant and meets the requirement of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958. 5. He argued that the allegations, which were levelled against the petitioners were required to be considered on the basis of material and evidence - simply because allegations of involvement in the illegal recovery of the narcotic substance were levelled, the petitioners, who were regularly recruited Constables could not have been dismissed from the services in the manner as has been done. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1431/2022 ) filed by one Seema Jakhar , who too was alleged to be involved in the very same case, has been allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 21.02.2025 and petitioners’ case is not different. 7. Mr. Deepak Chandak appearing for the respondents was not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how the case of the petitioners is different than the case of Seema Jakhar (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. On going through the common order of dismissal dated 24.11.2021, this Court finds that the respondent no. 4 has proceeded in hot haste and was swayed by the allegations, which were levelled against the petitioners. 10. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. On going through the common order of dismissal dated 24.11.2021, this Court finds that the respondent no. 4 has proceeded in hot haste and was swayed by the allegations, which were levelled against the petitioners. 10. Without commenting upon the petitioners’ involvement in the felony or not and refraining from dealing with the correctness of the allegations levelled, this Court is of the view that the case in hands does not fall within the ambit of provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. 11. The respondent no.4 has not recorded any finding as to how the regular inquiry against the petitioners is not practicable and feasible. There is no compelling reasons for which the regular disciplinary inquiry contemplated under the Rules of 1958 should have been done away with. 12. All these writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. 13. The order of dismissal dated 24.11.2021 qua each of the petitioners being clearly contrary to law is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The respondents shall forthwith reinstate the petitioners preferably within a period of 30 days from today. 15. As a consequence of setting aside the dismissal order, the petitioners shall be treated to be in service and shall be given notional benefits for such period. 16. Needless to observe that setting aside the order impugned will though result in reinstatement of the petitioners, but they shall be kept under suspension as the order dated 15.11.2021 would automatically get revived. 17. The respondents shall be free to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law, if so advised. 18. Stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.