Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Vishnu Prakash Barwar S/O Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8346/2022
Dr. Vishnu Prakash Barwar S/o Sh. Mangal Chand Barwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Yaduvanshi for Mr. Molik
Purohit.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
30/06/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Shekhar
Choudhary Vs. The Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.14678/2016) where in on 29.05.2017, the
following order was passed:-
"IA No. 2602/2017.
The petitioner has moved the present
application seeking preponement of the
date and disposal of the writ petition in
light of the judgment of this Court
rendered in case of Om Prakash Pandiya
Vs. State decided on 4.5.2015.
For the reasons stated in the application,
the same is allowed. The matter is taken
up for consideration today itself, keeping in
view the narrow compass of the
controversy and the fact that the petitioner
is undergoing suspension.
Mr. Solanki submitted that the petitioner
has been placed under suspension, on the
ground that a prosecution sanction has
been accorded in his case, while placing
reliance upon the circular dated 7.7.2016.
(2 of 3) [CW-8346/2022]
Learned counsel urged that this Court, in
the aforesaid judgment dated 4.5.2015,
has held that suspension, merely on the
ground of prosecution sanction is not
permissible and submitted that a circular
dated 10.5.2011, which is akin to the
circular dated 7.7.2016 relied upon in the
present case, has been quashed by this
Court.
On the other hand Mr. Mrigraj Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents, at the
outset submitted that the petitioner is
having efficacious statutory remedy of
appeal, in the form of Regulation 10 of the
Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Employees (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Regulation, 1962. Learned counsel
for the respondents placed before the
Court, judgment of this Court dated
04.2.2016 passed in SBCWP No.
8468/2015 and the order dated
09.12.2016 passed in SBCWP No.
7520/2016, for perusal and in support of
his contention that the petitioner is
required to avail remedy of appeal.
I have perused the judgment cited by the
rival parties.
The judgment cited by Mr. Sushil Solanki in
case of Om Prakash Pandiya squarely
covers the issues involved in the present
case, on merit, whereas a perusal of the
orders cited by Mr. Mrig Raj Singh reveal
that while deciding the writ petition No.
8468/2015 on 04.2.2016, this Court has
permitted the petitioner to withdraw the
writ petition, with a liberty to avail
alternative remedy of appeal, in view of
the objections raised by the respondents.
The above referred judgment dated
04.5.2015 of this Court, rendered in the
case of Om Prakash Pandiya (supra) was
perhaps not brought to the notice, due to
which; this Court seems to have asked the
petitioner to avail remedy by way of
appeal. Similarly the other order related to
SBCWP No. 7520/2016, wherein an order
of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal was under challenge, this Court,
allowing the writ petition, remanded the
matter back to the Service Appellate
Tribunal to decide the Appeal after taking
into consideration, the judgment of this
Court, rendered in case of Om Prakash
Pandiya's case (supra). A perusal of the
judgment/order dated 09.12.2016 reveals
(3 of 3) [CW-8346/2022]
that the said writ petition was filed by the
petitioner, having availed remedy of appeal
and in this factual backdrop, this Court has
remanded the matter back to the Service
Appellate Tribunal.
In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, since the controversy on
merit is squarely covered by the judgment
of Om Prakash Pandiya's case, referred
herein above, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to relegate the petitioner to
avail alternative remedy. No disputed
questions of facts are involved and the
basic question involved in the present case,
is a pure question of law, going to the root
of the matter; which too, has been set at
rest by this Court.
In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed, following the judgment rendered
in case of Om Prakash Pandiya. The order
impugned dated 02.12.2016, whereby the
petitioner has been placed under
suspension is quashed.
Needless to observe that the respondents
shall be free to take appropriate action;
including suspension of the petitioner in
accordance with law, if so desired."
In that view of the matter, issue notice to the respondent(s),
returnable within eight weeks.
Meanwhile, suspension of the petitioner vide order dated
11.04.2022 (Annexure-16) shall remain stayed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/243
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
