Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has upheld a decision to withhold 10% of the pension for life from three retired policemen due to their alleged negligence in a law-and-order situation that led to the mob killing of Sub-Inspector Phool Mohammed in 2011.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed the writ petition filed by the retired cops—Iftkharuddin, Govind Singh, and Shri Chand Nehra—on Oct 1. The trio had challenged a March 23, 2026, order from the joint secretary of the department of personnel, Rajasthan govt, withholding a part of their pensions.The three petitioners, who retired in Nov 2017, Aug 2012 and June 2019, respectively, faced departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to their retirements. The court noted that chargesheets were served on them in 2012, tied to a violent incident that occurred on March 17, 2011, at Soorwal village involving the murder of a woman named Dakha Devi. Following her murder, villagers protested, demanding the arrest of the accused, which led to escalating tensions.The protest turned chaotic when a demonstrator, Rajesh Meena, self-immolated and jumped from an overhead water tank, ultimately leading to mob violence. The three policemen were accused of neglecting their duties during this crisis and fleeing the scene, which led the mob to burn Sub-Inspector Phool Mohammed alive.The disciplinary charges asserted that three cops’ inaction not only fuelled the violent situation but also tarnished the reputation of the police force. Senior counsel GS Gautam, representing the cops, argued that although chargesheets existed, the departmental inquiry was never completed during their service, and the inquiry officer’s report submitted on July 5, 2019, exonerated them. He contended that the pension penalty was unjustified and questioned the delay of nearly six years following the inquiry officer’s report.The high court, however, rejected the contentions, saying, “Since the chargesheets had been served before the policemen retired, the proceedings could validly continue after their retirement under Rule 7(2)(a).”
