Rajendra Prasad Kudi vs State Of Rajasthan-State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6911 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28361]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11988/2023

Rajendra Prasad Kudi S/o Shri Narayan Lal Kudi, aged about 29 years, Resident of Village Karnipura, Post Khachariyawas, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Special Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. District Collector Udaipur, Collectorate Rd, Near Delhi Gate, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 06/09/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

of the inaction of the respondents in not reinstating him back

despite the fact that he has been acquitted by the appellate court

by judgment dated 25.02.2022.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner

was convicted by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District

Udaipur by judgment dated 28.02.2018 in a criminal case.

Though, it is claimed that the petitioner, who was under

suspension, was not served with order dated 20.08.2018

(Annex.8), the fact of the matter is that by the said order dated

20.08.2018, based on the conviction of the petitioner, he was

dismissed from the service. Now, the conviction of the petitioner

[2023:RJ-JD:28361] (2 of 2) [CW-11988/2023]

has been overturned by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Mavli, District Udaipur by its judgment dated 25.02.2022; based

on the said judgment of the appellate court, the petitioner

approached the respondents on the assumption that he was still

under suspension and prayed for being reinstated and for payment

of the subsistence allowance, when he claims to have become

aware of passing of the order dated 20.08.2018.

3. In the circumstances of the case, wherein the order of

dismissal dated 20.08.2018 (Annex.8) is based merely on the

conviction of the petitioner by the criminal court, the respondent

authorities are bound to pass appropriate order once the

conviction of the petitioner has been overturned by the appellate

court, however, apparently as the petitioner hasn't made

appropriate representation, the authorities have not passed the

order.

4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may approach the

respondents by way of appropriate representation based on the

fact that he has been dismissed by order dated 20.08.2018,

seeking reinstatement based on the fact that the appeal preferred

by the petitioner has been accepted by the appellate court

resulting in his acquittal; and on making of such representation,

the competent authority shall pass appropriate order on the said

representation within a period of four weeks from the date the

representation is made by the petitioner.

5. With these observations and directions, the writ petition filed

by the petitioner stands disposed of.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 97-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)