Rajasthan High Court
H.R. Kasana Son Of Shri Jaimal Ram ... vs Rajasthan State Pollution ... on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/003123]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3056/2023
H.r. Kasana Son Of Shri Jaimal Ram Kasana, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of 6, Durga Vihar, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, 4, Institutional Area,
Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Through Its Chairman/ Member
Secretary.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kanta Devi with
Mr. R.C. Gauttam
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
17/02/2023
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner, challenging
the order of suspension dated 29.11.2021.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that one person Sh.
Sanjay Kothari was also suspended vide order dated 24.12.2019
and on the similar set of facts, he instituted SB Civil Writ Petition
No.10063/2021 titled Sanjay Kothari Vs. The State of Rajasthan
whereunder the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
13.09.2021, while deciding the writ petition, passed following
order:-
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
aggrieved against the order dated 24.12.2019 (Annex,-
1), whereby the petitioner has been placed under
suspension.
[2023/RJJP/003123] (2 of 3) [CW-3056/2023]
The petitioner made a representation (Annex.-10),
inter alia, indicating that already 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.
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 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.
In the over all fact 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 No.3-
disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the
representation made by the petitioner (Annex.-10) in
light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh
(supra).
The needful may be done by the respondent No.3
within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this
order is placed by the petitioner.
The petitioner would be free to file a further
representation alongwith requisite documents before the
disciplinary authority."
3. Learned counsel has pointed out that in pursuant to the
order dated 13.09.2021, respondents have decided the
representation of Sh. Sanjay Kothari vide order dated 28.09.2021
and his suspension order has been revoked. The copy of the order
dated 28.09.2021 has been placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case of
petitioner as well, challan has already been filed and despite
passage of sufficient long time, suspension of petitioner has not
[2023/RJJP/003123] (3 of 3) [CW-3056/2023]
been reviewed/revoked, therefore, respondents may be directed
to review/revoke the suspension order of petitioner in the light of
judgment in case of Manvendra Singh (Supra).
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with
direction to respondent that in case, petitioner files representation
to review/revoke his suspension order dated 29.11.2021, the
same be decided within a period of 60 days in the light of
judgment in case of Manvendra Singh (Supra).
6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
