Balwant Singh Begad vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9869 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

..

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7952/2021

Balwant Singh Begad S/o Shri Deeparam, Aged About 54 Years, House No. 5/216, Pareek Colony, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) At Present Posted As Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Samiti Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Panchayati Raj Department Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Churu (Raj.).

4. Jila Parishad, Hanumangarh (Raj.), Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu through VC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

29/06/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video

conferencing stated that the petitioner is not directly connected

with the alleged work, said to have been started in the month of

April, 2014; that the petitioner has joined the relevant post on

20.07.2015; that the prosecution sanction has wrongly been

issued against the petitioner; that in the disciplinary enquiry

report (at page 54), it has been mentioned at item No.1 in which,

the name of the petitioner (Balwant Singh Begad), the then

Assistant Engineer, Tibbi at present Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra,

(2 of 2) [CW-7952/2021]

cannot be held responsible for the irregularities found in the

alleged work because he was not posted at the relevant point of

time; that the prosecution sanction (Annexure-13 at page 56) has

been issued by the competent authority without application of

mind in a mechanical way; that pursuant to the prosecution

sanction, the petitioner has been suspended by the Department

(vide Annexure-14 at page 58). In support of their contentions,

learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the judgment

rendered in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs.

State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622. Learned

counsel stated that in the circumstances, as narrated above, the

effect and operation of impugned prosecution sanction order dated

07.06.2021 (Annexure-13 at page 56) may kindly be stayed.

Issue notice to the respondents. Issue notice of the stay

application also. Rule is made returnable within a period of two

weeks.

In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the impugned

prosecution sanction order dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure-13 at

page 56) shall remain stayed.

List the matter after two weeks.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 133-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)