Laxminarayan Khatik vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16477 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13789/2021

Laxminarayan Khatik S/o Bhairu Lal Khatik, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Chamanpura, Tehsil Baneda, District Bhilwara
(Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      The State       Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
        Secretary,     Department Of Rural Development And
        Panchayati      Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt.
        Secretariat,   Jaipur.
2.      The Secretary, Department Of Personal,                           Govt.   Of
        Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.      The District Collector, Bhilwara (Raj.).
4.      The Tehsildar, Tehsil Baneda, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Bhawani Singh Ransi



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                       Order

28/10/2021

     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.

     This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annex.-1), whereby the

petitioner has been placed under suspension.

     The petitioner made a representation (Annex.-10), inter alia,

indicating that already challan against the petitioner has been filed

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 28/10/2021 at 09:40:23 PM)
                                                                            (2 of 2)                        [CW-13789/2021]



                                         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 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 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.

                                         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 No.3-disciplinary authority, is directed to decide

                                   the representation made by the petitioner (Annex.-10) in light of

                                   the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

                                         The needful may be done by the respondent No.3 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.

62-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)