Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14035 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12702/2022

Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramlal, Aged About 39 Years, Near Hanuman Mandire Dhani 9Khr Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh. Presently Under Suspension At Headquarter Chief Engineer Water Resources Rajasthan Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Chief Engineer (Headqurter), Water Resources Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources North, Hanumangarh.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. N.R. Budania.
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Abhilasha Bora.
                               Ms. Saloni Malpani.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

29/11/2022

This writ petition has been field by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 18.05.2022 (Annex.7), whereby, the

representation made by the petitioner, against his continued

suspension, has been rejected.

The petitioner was placed under Suspension by order dated

21.05.2021 on account of registration of a case against the

petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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.5603/2022, which came

to be decided by order dated 20.04.2022, wherein, following the

(2 of 3) [CW-12702/2022]

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.

Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the

impugned order dated 18.05.2022 (Annex.7) has been passed by

the respondents inter-alia coming to the conclusion that as the

petitioner, who was performing the duties of a Patwari, is

performing public duty and in case, he is reinstated for

undertaking the work of Revenue Recovery, the same would affect

the credibility of the Department and, therefore, it was not

justified to reinstate him. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition

has been filed.

During the course of the submissions, when counsel for the

petitioner made submissions that the 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

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

the respondents is not justified.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

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

under Prevention of Corruption Act, the order impugned is justified

and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

However, on a query made, it was submitted after

completing her instructions that indeed few non-field postings are

(3 of 3) [CW-12702/2022]

available with the Department and based on requirement, the

Patwaris can be posted on the said posts.

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.

In that view of the matter, the order dated 18.05.2022

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

therefore, set-aside.

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.

Needful may be done by the respondents expeditiously,

preferably within a period of three weeks.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 36-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)