Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12865 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6819/2021
Parvat Singh S/o Sh. Lakh Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Tenasar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/08/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 21.08.2020 (Annex.-8), whereby the
petitioner has been placed under suspension.
The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that
challan has not been filed against the petitioner 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.
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
(2 of 2) [CW-6819/2021]
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 facts and 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 No.2 - disciplinary authority, is
directed to decide the representations made by the petitioner in
light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
The needful may be done by the respondent No.2 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 61-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!