Munim vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1202 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002946]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1815/2023

Munim S/o Sh. Ratan Harijan, Aged About 56 Years, Presently Working As Head Constable At Police Station, Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh (Currently Under Suspension), R/o Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Near Delhi Gate, Collectorate Road, Udaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Gopal Krishna for Mr. Falgun Buch
For Respondent(s)           :     -


                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                       Order

30/01/2023

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

against the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annex.-3), whereby the

petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. The petitioner made representation, 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.

[2023/RJJD/002946] (2 of 2) [CW-1815/2023]

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 232-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)