Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7598 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7177/2022
Suresh Chandra S/o Ram Karan Jat, Aged About 46 Years, Bas, Bijoli, Post Kasni, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Excise, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhakti Singh for Mr. Sushil Solanki.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
20/05/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 15.05.2019 (Annex.2), whereby the
petitioner has been placed under suspension.
It is, 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.
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
(2 of 2) [CW-7177/2022]
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 disciplinary authority is directed to decide the
representation to be made by the petitioner in light of the
judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
The needful may be done by the respondents within a period
of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the
petitioner.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 60-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!