Lokesh Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11654 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5911/2020

Lokesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner And Joint Secretary To The Government-Ii, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.

4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhainsrorgarh, District Chittorgarh.

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Manish Tak


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                                      Order

19/09/2022

By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the

order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner-

cum-Joint Secretary to the Government Department of Rural

Development & Panchayat Raj Department (Panchayati Raj),

Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

By the order impugned, the petitioner, a Panchayat Prasar

Adhikari was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary

proceedings against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a circular

dated 21.04.2015 was issued specifying that the Appointing

Authority for Panchayat Prasar Adhikari is the Secretary to the

(2 of 3) [CW-5911/2020]

Government and Commissioner, Department of Rural Development

and Panchayati Raj Department. Therefore, orders relating to

suspension/transfer/posting/deputation/selection grades etc. can

only be passed by the aforesaid authority. Counsel urged that the

impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner-cum-Joint

Secretary to the Government Department of Rural Development &

Panchayat Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, is without jurisdiction and deserves

to be quashed and set aside..

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that impugned order had been passed by the competent authority

which is evident from the order. It was also contended that

remedy of appeal is available under Rule 22 of Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as 'CC&A Rules of 1958') against the

suspension order, and therefore, the writ petition is not

maintainable solely on this ground. In support of aforesaid

contentions, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Prakash

Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. C.W. No.8681/2018).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The Rule 13 of CC&A Rules of 1958 mandates that an order

of suspension can be issued by the Appointing Authority or any

authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority

empowered by the Government in that behalf only on the

following grounds; (a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against an

employee is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case

(3 of 3) [CW-5911/2020]

against an employee in respect of any criminal offence is under

investigation or trial.

Circular dated 21.04.2015 issued by the respondent-

department, in unambiguous terms, states that the Appointing

Authority of Panchayat Prasar Adhikari is Secretary-cum-

Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, therefore, any

authority other than the aforesaid authority cannot place a

Panchayat Prasar Adhikari under suspension. The impugned order

dated 03.02.2020 apparently has been passed by the Additional

Commissioner-cum-Joint Secretary to the Government

Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department

(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, who is not the

appointing authority for the petitioner. In view of above, the

impugned order dated 03.02.2020 is hereby declared to have

been passed without jurisdiction.

It is a settled law that an alternative remedy is not an

absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an

authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court

should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 on

the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.

In the result, the present writ petition deserves to be and is

hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2020 is quashed

and set aside. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at

liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 51-KshamaD/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)