Mahendra Kumar Khatri vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 463 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/2023

Mahendra Kumar Khatri S/o Khemaram Ji Khatri, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Sutharwas, Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Nehru Sahakar Bhavan, Bhavani Singh Road, 22 Godam Circle, Jaipur.

2. The Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank, Through Its Managing Director, Sirohi Rajasthan.

3. Managing Director, The Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sirohi District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Krishan Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

11/01/2023

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

against the order dated 05.09.2019 (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.

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

(2 of 2) [CW-602/2023]

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 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 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.3 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 271-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)