Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kiran Rani Shrivastav vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/016799]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7034/2023
Kiran Rani Shrivastav S/o Shri Mukut Bihari Shrivastav, Aged
About 62 Years, Resident Of 28, Karni Nagar, Sector-Ii, Kudi
Bhagtasni Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Directorate,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
23/05/2023
The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayer:-
"1. That instant writ petition may kindly be ordered
to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the
appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of
the humble petitioner and impugned inaction of the
respondent may kindly be ordered to be quashed and
set aside.
2. That respondent may kindly be directed to
complete the inquiry which is pending against the
petitioner within time".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4623/2023, Sahadev Choudhary vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 20/04/2023.
The order dated 20/04/2023 is reproduced as under :-
[2023/RJJD/016799] (2 of 3) [CW-7034/2023]
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of
stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative
effect vide order dated 31.12.2007. Aggrieved of the
order dated 31.12.2007, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Secretary, Department of
Personnel. However, the same was returned back
without deciding for filing the same before the
Director General of Police. The Director General of
Police rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order
dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner aggrieved of the
impugned orders preferred a review petition before
His Excellency the Governor. The review petition of
the petitioner was partly allowed vide order dated
22.11.2013 and the matter was remanded back to
the Director General of Police for deciding the appeal
on merit.
Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the
matter is pending consideration with the Director
General of Police and the same has not yet been
decided or even if the same is decided, the decision
has not been communicated to the petitioner so far.
He, therefore, prays that the respondent No.2 may
be directed to decide the pending appeal
expeditiously or if the same has been decided, then
the orders passed on his appeal may be
communicated to the petitioner.
Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner,
the present writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent No.2 to either decide the
pending appeal of the petitioner (after the order
passed by His Excellency the Governor on
22.11.2013) within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order
strictly in accordance with law and if the same has
been decided on an earlier date, then he shall
communicate the order passed to the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the
certified copy of this order."
Learned counsel submits that the respondents may be
directed to decide the pending review petition of the petitioner at
the earliest.
Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, the present
writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent
No.2 to decide the pending review petition of the petitioner at the
earliest preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of
[2023/RJJD/016799] (3 of 3) [CW-7034/2023]
receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with
law.
The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
163-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
