Rajasthan High Court
Prahlad Kumar Meena Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10494/2022
Prahlad Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Brij Mohan Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Kurka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Zakawat Ali, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
02/08/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in this
writ petition has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the matter of Lava Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7349/2021) wherein on
26.07.2021 following order was passed;
"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 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
(2 of 3) [CW-10494/2022]
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.
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
(3 of 3) [CW-10494/2022]
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.
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."
In that view of the matter, list this writ petition along with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3809/2022 & 8921/2022 for final
disposal on 31.08.2022.
Meanwhile, further proceedings in pursuance to the charge-
sheet dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure-6) shall remain stayed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /160
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
