Raymalram Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16064 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14132/2021

Raymalram Solanki S/o Shri Sonaram Solanki, Aged About 47
Years, By Caste Solanki, Resident Of Village Khirodi Po Akoli,
Tehsil Chitalwana Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary And
        Secondary School Education And Language Department,
        Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.      The Joint Director, School Education Pali, Mandal Pali Dist.
        Pali (Raj.).
3.      The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
4.      The Principal District Education Officer, Jalore. (Raj.)
5.      The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
        Education Jalore (Raj.).
6.      The Chief Block Education Officer, Chitalwana Dist. Jalore
        (Raj.).
7.      The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School Malwara
        (Chitalwana), Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Choudhary



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                       Order

23/10/2021

     In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant

caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,

for the safety of all concerned.

     Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at

Jaipur Bench in Ashok Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;


                       (Downloaded on 25/10/2021 at 09:35:55 PM)
                                                                            (2 of 2)                [CW-14132/2021]



                                   (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.132 of 1982), particularly, para

                                   17, in which, it has been held that the suspension due to a

                                   criminal case ought to have some correlation with the employment

                                   or with the morality or justify the requirement of suspension by

                                   the appointing authority.

                                        Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the

                                   present case, the allegation in the FIR is pertaining a mutual

                                   dispute between two parties and the allegations do not indicate

                                   any shade of moral reasons justifying suspension nor it falls within

                                   the category of heinous crime.

                                        Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out

                                   that the interim order of protection against the orders has been

                                   granted by this Court.

                                        This Court, on careful perusal of the FIR, finds that it does

                                   not justify the suspension of the present petitioner at this stage.

                                        Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within a period of

                                   four weeks.

                                        In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated

                                   01.10.2021 shall remain stayed.



                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

26-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)