Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/015899]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4694/2018
Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Kumar, R/o Village Post
Santpur, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/05/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 13.09.2021, passed by this Court in case of
Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of Rajsthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2682/2021.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law, in spite of his
emphatic arguments.
3. In case of Bhagirath Ram (supra), while deciding identical
controversy in para No.27, the following timeline was fixed:
" 27(i) The disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed
for a period of three years from today.
[2023/RJJD/015899] (2 of 3) [CW-4694/2018]
(ii) Petitioner will be required to file his statement in
defence/reply along with the list of witnesses (if any)
within a period of 30 days from today. Such period is
extendable by not more than 30 days for reasons to be
recorded by the disciplinary authority, if facts and
circumstances so warrant.
(iii) After completion of three years, the disciplinary
authority shall resume the proceedings by giving at
least a 15 days' notice to the delinquent/employee of
his intentions so to do and to inform about the status of
criminal case.
(iv) It will be required of the petitioner - employee to
place relevant material, including copies of the order-
sheets/ proceedings of the Court, stage of the trial, list of
witnesses and number of witnesses examined by that
time and any other relevant information.
(v) The petitioner will be free to make a request to
adjourn the proceedings further, while indicating reasons
and grounds for the same.
(vi) The disciplinary authority in such event, shall
independently apply his mind on the material placed
and progression of the criminal case and decide as to
whether the enquiry is required to be stayed any
further.
(vii) In case, the disciplinary authority is of the view that
the enquiry is required to be kept on hold any further,
he will keep the same in abeyance for a further period,
not more than two years.
(viii) On completion of such period (total five years), the
disciplinary authority shall take up the proceedings by
appointing an inquiry officer under intimation to the
petitioner, who shall, then, proceed in accordance with
law, while following procedure provided under Rule 16
of the CCA Rules of 1958.
(ix) Needless to observe that if criminal case itself is
decided either way, during the aforesaid period of
[2023/RJJD/015899] (3 of 3) [CW-4694/2018]
three/five years, the disciplinary authority shall be free
to resume the inquiry, of course while observing
principles of natural justice.
(x) Above time frame is a broad guideline and directory
in nature; non adherence thereto will not per-se vitiate
the proceedings."
4. The present writ petition also stands disposed of in terms of
Bhagirath Ram (supra). The disciplinary proceedings shall be
kept in abeyance in terms thereof.
5. The respondents shall, however, be free to initiate the same,
in accordance with law, albeit as per above timeline.
6. The interlocutory application under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India so also the stay application stands disposed
of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
43-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
