Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rekha Sharma vs The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/001975]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8833/2022
Rekha Sharma W/o Sh. Arvind Pareek, Aged About 45 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 33 Nimach Mata Scheme, Dewali,
Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar, At
Ajmer.
2. The District Collector (Land Conversion), District Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashank Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered and
decided in petitioner's favour by this Court in the case of Shyam
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8334/2020 on 12.07.2021.
2. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General is not
in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Shyam Singh (supra), this Court has held
thus:-
"Upon perusal of the Single Bench
judgment of Manvendra Singh passed on
21.12.2018 and corresponding Division Bench
judgment Dated 04.02.2020,it clearly
emerges that, respondents can not find
themselves bound because of circulars issued
by the State Government, simply because of
pendency of Anti Corruption case(s).
[2023/RJJD/001975] (2 of 3) [CW-8833/2022]
The Division Bench in it's judgment
dated 04.02.2020, has clearly upheld the view
of the learned Single Judge, however, with the
modification that the matter has been left at
the discretion of the Competent Authority. A
direction has simultaneously been issued to
decide afresh, uninfluenced by the circulars
issued by the State Government.
Relevant part of the Division Bench
judgment dated 04.02.2020 reads thus:
"13. As laid down by the Supreme Court in
Sanjiv Ranjan's case(supra), ordinarily, when
there is an allegation of defalcation of the
money, the delinquent employee have to be
kept away from the establishment till the
charges are finally disposed of. In our
considered opinion, the charge of demand of
bribe, that too, by a police officer is also a
serious charge and therefore, the matter with
regard to revocation of suspension order of
such Government servant needs to be
appropriately assessed by the authority
concerned. We are firmly of the opinion that
the respondent does not deserve indulgence
by this Court so as to revoke the suspension
order straightaway where the authority
empowered under the Rules of 1958 has not
even applied its mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case as to whether the
suspension of the respondent deserves to be
revoked or not.
14. In view of the discussion above, the
order impugned passed by the learned Single
Judge to the extent of revocation of
suspension order deserves to be set aside and
the matter deserves to be remanded to the
authority concerned for consideration afresh in
terms of Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of
1958uninfluenced by the circulars issued by
the State Government as aforesaid.
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge to the extent of revocation of
suspension order is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the District Superintendent of
Police, District Sawai Madhopur to consider the
[2023/RJJD/001975] (3 of 3) [CW-8833/2022]
application of the respondent for revocation of
suspension order afresh in accordance with law
as discussed above. The entire exercise for
disposal of the application seeking revocation
of suspension order shall be concluded within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order. No order as to
costs."
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned
order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, District Pratapgarh is
untenable, as the SAW No.1111/2019 has
been decided as above. Order dated
14.01.2020, is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the
Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh for
taking decision afresh upon petitioner's
representation dated 23.12.2020, for
revocation of suspension, obviously,
uninfluenced by the circulars as has already
been directed by the Division Bench.
Requisite order be passed within a period
of six weeks from today.
Writ petition is allowed. Stay application
stands disposed of accordingly."
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed
and the respondents are directed to consider petitioner's
representation dated 09.02.2022 in accordance with law.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
244-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
