Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharwan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8367) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:8367] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 304/2024 Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Bhanwra Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jalwana Post Dhandhlas Tehsil Merta City District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The District Collector, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 16/02/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.04.2021, passed by this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 430/2021.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent - State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Surendra Kumar Meena (supra), this Court has held thus:-
"11. So far as the prayer for quashing charge-sheet is concerned, the petitioner has already filed reply to the first charge-sheet while to the second charge- sheet he has yet to file reply. It is at initial stage. This Court would not at this stage take into (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:04:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8367] (2 of 3) [CW-304/2024] consideration the factual aspects of the charge- sheet. It is for the competent disciplinary authority to examine the factual aspects keeping in view the reply filed by the petitioner and take a decision. At this stage, the competent authority is empowered to drop the charge-sheet or it may appoint an enquiry officer to further conduct enquiry thereto. However, this Court would not interfere with the charge-sheets in view of the law laid down as noted above. No person has been impleaded as party against whom the allegations of malice or bias have been levelled. In absence thereof, the said aspects cannot be examined.
12. As regards the charge-sheet issued by the District Collector is concerned, admittedly, the District Collector is neither the appointing authority nor controlling authority of the petitioner. The charge-sheet could not have been issued by the District Collector to the petitioner. Moreover, as the allegations levelled by the petitioner are against the SDM as well as Divisional Commissioner and as the Divisional Commissioner, who is senior to the Collector and is immediate superior authority, therefore, the charge-sheet issued by the District Collector suffers from malice in law and is also found to be issued by an incompetent authority.
13. In view thereof, the said charge-sheet dated 22/12/2020 issued by the District Collector, Dausa is quashed and set aside. The matter is left open for the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Govt. of Rajasthan to examine the aspects raised by the petitioner who, without prejudice, shall examine the reply filed by the petitioner, all the aspects thereto and take a decision independently at his own level.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of in the terms as aforesaid. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of."(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:04:06 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8367] (3 of 3) [CW-304/2024]
4. Following the reasoning given in the case of Surendra Kumar Meena (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.
5. The order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure-4) is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
6. The respondents shall be free to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, while issuing the charge- sheet by competent authority.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 166-Mak/-
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:04:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)