Harlal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1240 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003563]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1840/2023

Harlal Meena S/o Late Shri Bhaguta Meena, Aged About 59 Years, Village And Post Ranipura, Tehsi Uniyara, Police Station Nagar Fort, District Tonk (Raj.) At Present R/o Flat No. 4 M.g. Road, Up Of Bank Of Baroda, District Pratapgarh. At Present Posted As An Enforcement Officer (E.o.), At Head Quarter District Supply Officer District Pratapgarh (Suspended).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. State Of Rajasthan, The Additional Food Commissioner, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Dupty Commissioner, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vinod Pathak
For Respondent(s)          :



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

02/02/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 08.09.2021 (Annex.-2), whereby the

petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that

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.

[2023/RJJD/003563] (2 of 2) [CW-1840/2023]

3. 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 at Jaipur Bench 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 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.

4. In the over all facts and 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 respondent - disciplinary authority, is directed

to decide the representations made by the petitioner in light of the

judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

5. 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.

6. The petitioner would be free to file a further representation

alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 148-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)