Kiran vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14573 Raj

(1 of 4) [CW-15075/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15075/2021

Kiran D/o Shri Ganesha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Deedwana Road, Near Fagu Pulia Ring Road, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Additional Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Ajmer.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Manoj Bohra
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

12/12/2022

IA No. 01/2022

1. For the reasons stated, the application seeking early hearing

is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15075/2021

1. Heard on the writ petition.

2. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 12.10.2021 (Annex.7), whereby the

(2 of 4) [CW-15075/2021]

representation made by the petitioner against his continued

suspension has been rejected.

3. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated

17.02.2021 on account of registration of a case against the

petitioner under Sections 143, 386 & 389 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After the charge-sheet was filed and the suspension of the

petitioner was not reviewed by the respondents, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing SBCWP No.12814/2021, which

came to be decided by order dated 18.09.2021, wherein, following

the order in the case of Manvendra Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.4276/2018, decided on

21.12.2018, the respondents were directed to decide the

representation to be made by the petitioner in light of the said

judgment.

5. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the

impugned order dated 12.10.2021 (Annex.7) has been passed by

the respondents inter-alia coming to the conclusion that offences

alleged against the petitioner were serious in nature and,

therefore, it was not justified to reinstate him. Feeling aggrieved,

the present petition has been filed.

6. During the course of the submissions, when learned counsel

for the petitioner made submissions that only reason indicated for

rejecting the representation of the petitioner, despite the law laid

down in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), is that the

petitioner is performing work, whereby, he has to deal with public

and the same would affect the credibility of the Department.

However, the respondents could have reinstated the petitioner and

accord him a non-field posting, which posts are available with the

(3 of 4) [CW-15075/2021]

respondents and, therefore, the rejection on the said ground by

the respondents is not justified.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

looking to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner i.e.

offences under Sections 143, 386 & 389 of the Indian Penal Code,

the order impugned is justified and, therefore, the petition

deserves dismissal.

8. However, on a query made, it was submitted after

completing his instructions that indeed few non-field postings are

available with the Department.

9. This Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra) after

referring to various judgments came to a conclusion that the

prolonged suspension of the employees even after the charge-

sheets have been filed, does not enure to the benefit of anyone

and that their cases must be considered for the purpose of

reinstatement. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents after

referring to the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra),

only by indicating that looking to the nature of duties to be

performed by the petitioner, which involved field posting

/interaction with the general public, the same would affect the

credibility of the Department, has rejected the representation of

the petitioner, however, the fact that non-field postings are also

available with the Department, wherein the petitioner can be

posted, in case he is reinstated, has not been considered by the

respondents.

10. In that view of the matter, the order dated 12.10.2021

passed by the respondents cannot be sustained, the same is,

therefore, set-aside.

(4 of 4) [CW-15075/2021]

11. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for

passing a fresh order, keeping in view the judgment in the case of

Manvendra Singh (supra) as well as the fact that non-field

postings are also available with the Department.

12. Needful may be done by the respondents expeditiously,

preferably within a period of three weeks

(DINESH MEHTA),J

151-Inder/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)