Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/010874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1844/2023
Ghanshyam Meena S/o Ramsahay Meena, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Arej Police Station, Shrimahaveer Ji, Dist. Karoli. at the time
of Suspension Junior Marketing Office Cum Secretary, Krishi Upaj
Mandi, Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.P. Rankawat
Mr. Hari Prasad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
19/04/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged
order dated 26.12.2022, whereby, petitioner's representation of
the revocation of suspension has been rejected.
2. Precise facts appertain to the present purposes are that the
petitioner has been caught red handed and was placed under
suspension by the respondents on 21.12.2020.
3. Petitioner filed the writ petition (being SBCWP No.14468/2022)
before this Court, challenging his suspension, which came to be
decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.10.2022 in light
[2023/RJJD/010874] (2 of 4) [CW-1844/2023]
of judgment passed by this Court in case of Manvendra Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4. The petitioner thereafter moved a representation, praying
revocation of suspension in light of judgment/ order dated
10.10.2022, passed in his writ petition.
5. Said representation was rejected by the Competent Authority
interalia observing that the judgment of Manvendra Singh has
been stayed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal Writ
No.1111/2019.
6. Mr. Rankawat, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that
the reasons given by the Competent Authority while rejecting
petitioner's request for revoking his suspension does not exist
anymore inasmuch as the above referred appeal No.1111/2019
has been disposed of by the Division Bench vide judgment dated
04.02.2020; order of learned single Judge has been upheld except
with a modification that the matter was remanded to the
Competent Authority to apply it's own mind on the issue of
suspension, without being influenced by the circulars issued by the
State Government.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Upon perusal of the Single Bench judgment of Manvendra
Singh passed on 21.12.2018 and corresponding Division Bench
judgment Dated 04.02.2020, it clearly emerges that, respondents
can not find themselves bound because of circulars issued by the
State Government, simply because of pendency of Anti Corruption
case(s).
9. The Division Bench in it's judgment dated 04.02.2020, has
clearly upheld the view of the learned Single Judge, however, with
[2023/RJJD/010874] (3 of 4) [CW-1844/2023]
the modification that the matter has been left at the discretion of
the Competent Authority. A direction has simultaneously been
issued to decide afresh, uninfluenced by the circulars issued by
the State Government.
10. Relevant part of the Division Bench judgment dated
04.02.2020 reads thus:
"13. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjiv
Ranjan's case(supra), ordinarily, when there is an
allegation of defalcation of the money, the
delinquent employee have to be kept away from
the establishment till the charges are finally
disposed of. In our considered opinion, the charge
of demand of bribe, that too, by a police officer is
also a serious charge and therefore, the matter
with regard to revocation of suspension order of
such Government servant needs to be
appropriately assessed by the authority
concerned. We are firmly of the opinion that the
respondent does not deserve indulgence by this
Court so as to revoke the suspension order
straightaway where the authority empowered
under the Rules of 1958 has not even applied its
mind to the facts and circumstances of the case
as to whether the suspension of the respondent
deserves to be revoked or not.
14. In view of the discussion above, the order
impugned passed by the learned Single Judge to
the extent of revocation of suspension order
deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves
to be remanded to the authority concerned for
consideration afresh in terms of Rule 13 (5) of the
Rules of 1958 uninfluenced by the circulars issued
by the State Government as aforesaid.
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
order impugned passed by the learned Single
Judge to the extent of revocation of suspension
order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the
District Superintendent of Police, District Sawai
Madhopur to consider the application of the
respondent for revocation of suspension order
afresh in accordance with law as discussed above.
The entire exercise for disposal of the application
[2023/RJJD/010874] (4 of 4) [CW-1844/2023]
seeking revocation of suspension order shall be
concluded within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No
order as to costs."
11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
26.12.2022 passed by the Director, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan is untenable, as the SAW
No.1111/2019 has been decided as above. Order dated
26.12.2022, is hereby quashed.
12. The matter is remanded back to the Director, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan for taking decision
afresh upon petitioner's representation dated 18.10.2022, for
revocation of suspension, obviously, uninfluenced by the circulars
as has already been directed by the Division Bench.
13. Requisite order be passed within a period of six weeks from
today.
14. Writ petition is allowed. Stay application stands disposed of
accordingly.
15. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in
the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
156-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
