Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:32272]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10897/2023
Hari Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh Ji, Aged About 50 Years, Caste
Rajput, R/o Ward Number 11, Rajputon Ka Mohhalla, Deogarh,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. (Hall U.D.C. At Municipal Board,
Deogarh, Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Dy. Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director And Special Secretary, Department Of Local
Bodies, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Municipal Board, Deogarh, District
Rajsamand.
4. The Municipal Board, Deogarh Through Its Executive
Officer, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
03/10/2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7010/2020 "Sukumar Kashyap Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors." decided on 14.10.2020 in the following terms :-
[2023:RJ-JD:32272] (2 of 3) [CW-10897/2023]
"I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record.
It is no doubt true that the provisions of Rule 25A
of the Rules, 1951 only deal with the 'pay during A.P.O.'
and do not indicate any substantive provision/parameters
for which an officer can be placed A.P.O. However,
Government of Rajasthan decisions under Rule 25A of the
Rules, 1951 have elaborately dealt with the practice of
placing government servants under A.P.O., which inter
alia has referred to the previous instructions and has
emphasized that the Administrative Department should
avoid keeping government employees A.P.O. as a routine
or as an option to disciplinary action, besides indicating
the circumstances in which the orders can be passed. The
circumstances indicated essentially deal with the cases
where an employee, who was on leave, deputation, had
gone abroad, was on training etc., when joins back, can
be placed A.P.O.
Learned AAG, despite specific query, failed to point
out any substantive provision dealing with placing a
government servant 'A.P.O.' The entire emphasis in reply
and in the note sheet produced pertains to various
allegations against the petitioner pertaining to alleged
misconduct and the fact that he was being investigated
by the respondent Department and to ensure that inquiry
is fair, he was being placed A.P.O.
As noticed hereinbefore, the instructions under
Rule 25A of the Rules, 1951 have taken note of the
practice of placing an officer A.P.O. as an option to
disciplinary action and has deprecated the said practice.
Even otherwise, it is well settled that no administrative
action in the nature of punishment can be taken against
a Government servant in the guise of passing some other
order like transfer and/or placing A.P.O. In view thereof,
based on the specific admission of the respondents
regarding the order having been passed on account of
alleged conduct of the petitioner, the action of the
respondents in placing the petitioner A.P.O. cannot be
sustained.
[2023:RJ-JD:32272] (3 of 3) [CW-10897/2023]
So far as the submissions made that the conduct of
the petitioner is such that he does not deserve to remain
posted at the present place of posting is concerned, if the
respondents find the conduct of the petitioner so
objectionable, then they may take appropriate
proceedings as per the provisions of various service Rules
and the practice of placing an officer A.P.O. cannot be
resorted to by way of an alternative, to such action.
The respondents as appointing authority /
disciplinary authority are always free to take action in
accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated
7/8/2020 (Annex.3) passed by the respondents is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. However, the
respondents would be free to take appropriate action
against the petitioner, if deemed necessary, in
accordance with law.
No order as to costs"
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
controvert the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of
Sukumar Kashyap (supra) on 14.10.2020. Consequently, the order
dated 07.07.2023 (Annex.1) is quashed qua the petitioner Hari
Singh.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
196-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
