Pushkar Lal Mali vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13797 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 733/2022

Pushkar Lal Mali S/o Shri Ram Pal Mali, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Gangapur City, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principle Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parisad Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sahada, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

5. Shri Kamlesh Jeengar, Presently Holding the Charge of Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Cheer Khera, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Dr. Nupur Bhati with
                               Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukesh Vyas

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 24/11/2022

The petitioner-appellant has preferred this intra court appeal

against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 by which his

writ petition has been dismissed.

The appellant had preferred the writ petition against the

order dated 15.07.2022, whereby an inquiry was initiated against

him and he was placed under APO (Awaiting Posting Order).

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that

he was transferred to Gram Panchayat, Cheer Khera but was not

allowed to take charge at the transferred place. Although, he did

not take charge at the transferred place, a departmental inquiry

has been initiated against him on the allegation of having made

payment of Rs.20 lakhs.

(2 of 2) [SAW-733/2022]

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with

a specific finding that once there is an allegation against the

petitioner pertaining to financial irregularity without officially

getting charge at a transferred place, the consequential placing

the petitioner APO cannot be faulted.

We are of the specific opinion that there is no good ground

for assailing the order impugned and also the order vide which the

inquiry has been instituted under the aforesaid facts and

circumstances.

Since, there is a dispute as to whether the appellant has

joined at the transferred place or has not been allowed to join, he

has been rightly directed to be placed as APO.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that under

Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the appellant can

be kept APO only in certain contingencies and not for the reason

that a departmental inquiry has been initiated against him or that

he has not been allowed to take charge or on the ground that

there is a dispute with regard to his taking over charge at the

transferred place. The Government decisions referred in Rule 25-A

are not exhaustive rather they are the instances wherein usually a

Government servant can be kept under awaiting posting orders.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not

find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the writ

court. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                              (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
                                    44-Sachin/AnilKC-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)