Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yogendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 October, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 2) [CW-14771/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14771/2021
Yogendra Kumar S/o Late Birbal Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Village Phoolpur (Purwa), District Ajamgarh Uttar Pradesh
(Presently Working In The Office Of Deputy Commissionerate
Colonization, Nachana, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Colonization
Bikaner.
2. Additional Commissioner (Appeal, Vigilance Colonization),
Bikaner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Nachana, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/10/2021
In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the
Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being
maintained for the safety of all concerned.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 18.03.2021 (Annex.4), whereby the
petitioner has been placed under suspension.
The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that
challan has not been filed against the petitioner and despite
passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been
reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review
and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.
(Downloaded on 23/10/2021 at 09:59:46 PM)
(2 of 2) [CW-14771/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to
judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No.
4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted 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 three years from the date of
suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the
chargesheet 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.
In the over all facts and 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 representations made by the petitioner in light of the
judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
The needful may be done by the concerned respondent
within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is
placed by the petitioner.
The petitioner would be free to file a further representation
alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
171-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
