Rajmal Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2364 Raj

[2023/RJJD/007045]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1905/2020

Rajmal Nayak S/o Late Shri Jodh Raj, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Lodi Mandvi, Tehsil Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Joint Director, School Education, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. District Collector, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

5. District Education Officer (Headquarater), Secondary Education, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

6. Block Education Officer, Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

7. Government Senior Secondary School, Mandvi, Tehsil Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Through Its Principal.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajmal Nayak, Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar, Additional Government Counsel for Mr. Hemant Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

21/03/2023

1. The petitioner present in person submits that even after

passing of three years of his suspension, the respondents have not

revoked his suspension, which is violative of his fundamental

rights.

2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, this

Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner is of

[2023/RJJD/007045] (2 of 2) [CW-1905/2020]

fraudulently obtaining appointment on the basis of forged

documents. In a case like the present one, when very entry of an

employee is under cloud and departmental enquiry is under way,

respondents cannot be directed to revoke the suspension even in

the light of judgment rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench on

21.12.2018 in the case of Manvendra Singh vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4276/2018.

3. Applicability of the ratio of judgment in the case of

Manvendra Singh (supra) can be pressed into service when an

employee is facing disciplinary enquiry on charges other than the

charge of procuring appointment fraudulently. The present writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed.

4. Needless to observe that in case after departmental enquiry,

it is found that the appointment secured by the petitioner was not

fraudulent, the petitioner shall obviously be entitled for all benefits

available under law.

5. Considering that the petitioner joined the services in the year

1991 and he is 54 years of age, the disciplinary authority is

directed to conclude the enquiry as early as possible preferably

within a period of three months from today.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 165-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)