Mohd. Imtiaz vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12636 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10637/2021

Mohd. Imtiaz S/o Dr. Mohd. Niyaz, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Muslim, Resident Of L.i.g.h. 83, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur Pin 342008 (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Secretary (Gr. - Iii Complaints), Department Of Personnel Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Director (Public Health), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Jaipur

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit For Respondent(s) :

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

12/08/2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 21.11.2016 (Annex.-1), whereby the

petitioner has been placed under suspension.

The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that

already charge-sheet 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-10637/2021]


                                           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.

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.-6) in light of the

judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

The needful may be done by the concerned respondent

within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is

placed by the petitioner.

The petitioner would be free to file a further representation

alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 115-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)