Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jamna Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3925/2021
Jamna Sharma W/o Shri Bhagwantilal Sharma, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Dovda, Tehsil Amet, Dist-Rajsamand,
(Presently Posted At Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Rapdiya,
Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh Under Suspension).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director, School Education Udaipur.
4. The District Education Officer (H.q.), Elementary
Education, Rajsamand.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Kumbhalgarh,
Dist Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.P. Singh
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
06/04/2021
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 27.08.2013 (Annex.-1), whereby the
petitioner has been placed under suspension.
2. The petitioner made representations dated 04.01.2021 and
11.01.2021 (Annex.4), inter alia, indicating that already challan
against the petitioner has been filed and despite passage of
sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and,
therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the
petitioner deserves to be reinstated.
(2 of 2) [CW-3925/2021]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to
judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW
No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted
that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of
the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958
and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and
has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government
laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension
order after a period of three years from the date of
suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge-
sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the
authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even
prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.
4. In the over all fact circumstances of the case as projected as
well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra
Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed
of, the respondent-disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the
representations made by the petitioner (Annex.-4) in light of the
judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
5. The needful may be done by the respondent No.3 within a
period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed
by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner would be free to file a further representation
alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
34-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
