Baburam Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1124 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1124 Raj
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Baburam Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023/RJJD/002985]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18522/2022

Baburam Chouhan S/o Hardanram Chouhan, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Basta Pada Tehsil Ramgarh, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer 345022 (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, (Govt. Of Rajasthan), Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.

4. District Education Officer (Secondary), Jaisalmer.

5. Jagganath Singh S/o Ugam Singh, Resident Of Bhojraj Ki Dhani, Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, Present Occupation Lecturer (History), Government Girls School, Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner             :     Mr. Rajak Khan
For Respondents            :



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                      Order

30/01/2023

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:-

"I. By issuing an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof; the respondents may be directed to initiate departmental and disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent No. 5-Jagganath Singh being a Public Servant, in accordance to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer has taken cognizance under section 193,

[2023/RJJD/002985] (2 of 4) [CW-18522/2022]

420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent No. 5 for giving false affidavit in Judicial proceeding.

II. That Any other appropriate order or direction by which this Hon'ble court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are that an FIR, bearing No.

282/2014, was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer

by the Additional Commissioner, Colonization on 06.08.2014, on

the basis of a complaint which was forwarded by the present

petitioner-Baburam Chouhan, stating therein that the respondent

no.5-Jagganath Singh, who has been working as a lecturer

(History) since the year 1989, had applied for land allotment in

the year 1996 and had submitted an affidavit to this effect

claiming that farming was his main source of income. And that,

the same being false, the aforementioned FIR came to be lodged

against the respondent no.5 for the offences under Sections 193,

420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and the matter is under trial.

2.1 That the charge-sheet, dated 31.08.2019, has been filed

against the respondent no.5 in pursuance of the aforementioned

FIR. And that owing to order, dated 20.06.2018, passed by the

Sessions Court, Jaisalmer the respondent no.5 is presently on bail.

2.2 That the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide order dated

22.09.2021 proceeded to take cognizance against the respondent

no.5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy

Commissioner, Colonisation Department, Jaisalmer wrote a letter,

[2023/RJJD/002985] (3 of 4) [CW-18522/2022]

dated 30.07.2014 (at Annex-4) to the District Education Officer

(Secondary) Jaisalmer with respect to initiation of disciplinary

proceedings against the respondent no.5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner made several representations to the concerned

authorities since the year 2014, yet disciplinary action against the

respondent no.5 was not initiated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance

upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jarnail

Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1996 (1) WLC 304 :

1995 (1) WLN 438.

Relevant portion of the said judgment as relied upon by the

learned counsel is reproduced hereunder:-

"In the writ petition, I would not like to go into the merits of the case as any finding recorded by this Court, will prejudicially affect either of the parties. It is sufficient at this stage to find out where there is material on record for exercise of the discretion by the Appointing Authority for putting the petitioner under suspension. Of course, the authority cannot exercise the power arbitrarily or mala fide but once the discretion is exercised and it is based on material, this Court shall not interfere with the order of suspension passed in exercise of the discretion vested in the authority, particularly so when the suspension is not a punishment imposed on the Gout, servant. The order of suspension passed by the authority is based on framing of the charge in the criminal case and cannot be said to be without any basis. There is no force in the writ petition."

6. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

[2023/RJJD/002985] (4 of 4) [CW-18522/2022]

7. This Court observes that the judgment rendered by this

Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) does not apply to the

factual matrix of the present case.

8. This Court further observes that it is the absolute prerogative

of the concerned department whether to initiate departmental

proceedings against the respondent no.5, as the two share the

employee and employer relationship. And the present petitioner

has no locus standi to file the present writ petition with the prayer

that this Court may direct the employer-department to initiate

departmental and disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent