Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heera Chand Nayak vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-7959/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7959/2020
Heera Chand Nayak S/o Late Shri Vajiya Ji, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o Village And Post - Agarpura, Tehsil - Gadhi, District -
Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of School Education And Bhasha,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education,
Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Secondary Education,
Udaipur Zone, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/07/2021
1. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated
27.12.2017 with retrospective effect from 22.12.2017 in
furtherance of a case of bribery lodged against him.
2. He submits that petitioner's grievance is that, though challan
has long been filed yet the respondents have not taken any
decision on revocation of petitioner's suspension
3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is going to be
superannuated on 30.09.2021 and if appropriate decision is not
(2 of 3) [CW-7959/2020]
taken by the respondents, petitioner's right of getting retiral
benefits and other emoluments will be adversely affected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes reference of
judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW
No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench and
submits 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 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.
5. 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
representation made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in
the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's
representation dated 11.06.2019 expeditiously.
7. For the purpose aforesaid, petitioner may file a fresh
representation alongwith relevant judgments and certified copy of
the order instant within a period of seven days from today.
8. On receipt of the representation, Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner is directed to consider the same as early as
possible, preferably before 31.07.2021.
(3 of 3) [CW-7959/2020]
9. If the respondent-Director is of the view that petitioner's
representation does not deserve acceptance, he will pass a
reasoned order, against which petitioner's right to take legal
remedies shall stand reserved.
10. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
71-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
