Anil Kumar Bhati vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1040 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002447]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1337/2023

Anil Kumar Bhati S/o Sh. Anand Prakash Bhati, Aged About 59 Years, R/o C-183, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/01/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

aggrieved against the order dated 12.10.2022 (Annex.-2),

whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. The petitioner made representation, inter alia,

indicating that challan has not been filed against the petitioner

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.

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

[2023/RJJD/002447] (2 of 2) [CW-1337/2023]

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 No.2 - 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 respondent No.2

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 346-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)