Rajasthan High Court
Lava Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7349/2021
Lava Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Jamana Sahay Sharma,
Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Mau, Post Chandpur, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. Chief District Education Officer, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Singh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
26/07/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a Senior Teacher (Mathematics) working at
Government Senior Secondary School Babedi, Bansur, District
Alwar.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was placed
under suspension vide order dated 18.06.2021 by the
respondents, exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958.
Learned counsel submitted that it was alleged in the order of
suspension that the petitioner by his mobile phone had sent
messages through WhatsApp on social media against the State
(2 of 4) [CW-7349/2021]
Government and a particular Political Party & further by sending
such messages/video/photo, the petitioner had shown total
disregard to the norms required to be maintained by a
Government Servant.
Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 18.06.2021
was put to challenge before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate,
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by filing appeal
No.2162/2021.
Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated
06.07.2021 has refused to pass an ex-parte interim order and
only issued notices to the respondents in the appeal and the next
date was fixed for 27.07.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged
act of the petitioner cannot be termed as a misconduct for which
an enquiry can be conducted against him or he is required to be
placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photocopies
of WhatsApp messages, which are alleged to be sent by him on
the social media.
Learned counsel has shown the WhatsApp messages and
submitted that the petitioner in no manner has criticized the
Government or the policy of the State Government and expression
of the petitioner in respect of certain events, are not targeted
against Government or any Political Party.
Learned counsel submitted that the right, which is given to
the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
cannot be curtailed by the respondents by taking recourse to such
action of placing the petitioner under suspension.
(3 of 4) [CW-7349/2021]
Learned counsel further submitted that even the criticism of
any executive action, cannot be termed as a misconduct for which,
the Government employee can be punished by way of a
departmental enquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey
Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589.
Learned counsel also refers to a judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1, whereby the Apex Court has
considered the scope of Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(2) of the
Constitution of India and also considered sub-section 66-A, 69-A
and 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to a judgment
passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Prasad
Pannian Vs. The Central University of Kerala passed in Writ
Petition (C) No.31703/2018 dated 05.12.2018.
Learned counsel submitted that expression of views by an
employee should not be prevented by the State in a democratic
society and further for constituting a misconduct, it will depend
upon the nature of criticism or comment made by the Government
Servant.
Learned counsel also refers to an order passed by the High
Court of Tripura, Agartala in the case of Smt. Lipika Pual Vs.
The State of Tripura & Ors. [WP (C) No.1363/2019] decided
by order dated 09.01.2020 and the order passed in the case of
Jayant s/o Sarvottamrao Kharwadkar Vs. State of
Maharastra and Anr. reported in 2018(4) Mh.L.J.656.
(4 of 4) [CW-7349/2021]
Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal while hearing
the stay application of the petitioner has not considered the law,
which was cited before it, passed by the Kerala High Court.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application,
returnable on 23.08.2021. Notices be given 'dasti', if prayed.
In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the suspension
order dated 18.06.2021 shall remain stayed and the petitioner
would be allowed to continue at the same place where he was
continuing prior to passing of the suspension order dated
18.06.2021.
This Court further finds that the matter requires
consideration by the High Court and as such the Tribunal is
restrained to proceed in the appeal.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Ramesh Vaishnav/86/Monika
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
