Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harkesh Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 623/2020
Harkesh Meena S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand Ji, Aged About 40
Years, B/c Meena, R/o Village Akoda Meena, Thana Raini, District
Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Raj. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District - Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/08/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged
order dated 19.10.2019, whereby, petitioner's representation of
the revocation of suspension has been rejected.
2. Precise facts appertain to the present purposes are that the
petitioner has been caught red handed and was placed under
suspension by the respondents on 15.04.2018.
3. Petitioner filed the writ petition (being SBCWP
No.14076/2019) before this Court, challenging his suspension,
which came to be decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
25.09.2019 in light of judgment passed by this Court in case of
Manvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(2 of 4) [CW-623/2020]
4. The petitioner thereafter moved a representation, praying
revocation of suspension in light of judgment/order dated
06.11.2019, passed in his writ petition.
5. Said representation was rejected by the Competent Authority
interalia observing that the judgment of Manvendra Singh has
been stayed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal Writ
No.1111/2019.
6. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that
the reasons given by the Competent Authority while rejecting
petitioner's request for revoking his suspension does not exist
anymore inasmuch as the above referred appeal No.1111/2019
has been disposed of by the Division Bench vide judgment dated
04.02.2020; order of learned single Judge has been upheld except
with a modification that the matter was remanded to the
Competent Authority to apply it's own mind on the issue of
suspension, without being influenced by the circulars issued by the
State Government.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Upon perusal of the Single Bench judgment of Manvendra
Singh passed on 21.12.2018 and corresponding Division Bench
judgment Dated 04.02.2020, it clearly emerges that, respondents
can not find themselves bound because of circulars issued by the
State Government, simply because of pendency of Anti Corruption
case(s).
9. The Division Bench in it's judgment dated 04.02.2020, has
clearly upheld the view of the learned Single Judge, however, with
the modification that the matter has been left at the discretion of
the Competent Authority. A direction has simultaneously been
(3 of 4) [CW-623/2020]
issued to decide afresh, uninfluenced by the circulars issued by
the State Government.
10. Relevant part of the Division Bench judgment dated
04.02.2020 reads thus:
"13. As laid down by the Supreme Court in
Sanjiv Ranjan's case(supra), ordinarily, when
there is an allegation of defalcation of the
money, the delinquent employee have to be
kept away from the establishment till the
charges are finally disposed of. In our
considered opinion, the charge of demand of
bribe, that too, by a police officer is also a
serious charge and therefore, the matter with
regard to revocation of suspension order of
such Government servant needs to be
appropriately assessed by the authority
concerned. We are firmly of the opinion that
the respondent does not deserve indulgence
by this Court so as to revoke the suspension
order straightaway where the authority
empowered under the Rules of 1958 has not
even applied its mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case as to whether the
suspension of the respondent deserves to be
revoked or not.
14. In view of the discussion above, the
order impugned passed by the learned Single
Judge to the extent of revocation of
suspension order deserves to be set aside and
the matter deserves to be remanded to the
authority concerned for consideration afresh in
terms of Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of
1958uninfluenced by the circulars issued by
the State Government as aforesaid.
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge to the extent of revocation of
suspension order is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the District Superintendent of
Police, District Sawai Madhopur to consider the
application of the respondent for revocation of
suspension order afresh in accordance with law
as discussed above. The entire exercise for
(4 of 4) [CW-623/2020]
disposal of the application seeking revocation
of suspension order shall be concluded within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order. No order as to
costs."
11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
17.12.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District
Banswara is untenable, as the SAW No.1111/2019 has been
decided as above. Order dated 17.12.2019, is hereby quashed.
12. The matter is remanded back to the Superintendent of
Police, Banswara for taking decision afresh upon petitioner's
representation dated 20.10.2019, for revocation of suspension,
obviously, uninfluenced by the circulars as has already been
directed by the Division Bench.
13. Requisite order be passed within a period of six weeks from
today.
14. Writ petition is allowed. Stay application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
472-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
