Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharwan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8367) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:8367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 304/2024
Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Bhanwra Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Jalwana Post Dhandhlas Tehsil Merta City District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The District Collector, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/02/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 07.04.2021, passed by this Court in the case of
Surendra Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 430/2021.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent - State is not in a
position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Surendra Kumar Meena (supra), this Court has
held thus:-
"11. So far as the prayer for quashing charge-sheet
is concerned, the petitioner has already filed reply to
the first charge-sheet while to the second charge-
sheet he has yet to file reply. It is at initial stage.
This Court would not at this stage take into
[2024:RJ-JD:8367] (2 of 3) [CW-304/2024]
consideration the factual aspects of the charge-
sheet. It is for the competent disciplinary authority
to examine the factual aspects keeping in view the
reply filed by the petitioner and take a decision. At
this stage, the competent authority is empowered to
drop the charge-sheet or it may appoint an enquiry
officer to further conduct enquiry thereto. However,
this Court would not interfere with the charge-sheets
in view of the law laid down as noted above. No
person has been impleaded as party against whom
the allegations of malice or bias have been levelled.
In absence thereof, the said aspects cannot be
examined.
12. As regards the charge-sheet issued by the
District Collector is concerned, admittedly, the
District Collector is neither the appointing authority
nor controlling authority of the petitioner. The
charge-sheet could not have been issued by the
District Collector to the petitioner. Moreover, as the
allegations levelled by the petitioner are against the
SDM as well as Divisional Commissioner and as the
Divisional Commissioner, who is senior to the
Collector and is immediate superior authority,
therefore, the charge-sheet issued by the District
Collector suffers from malice in law and is also found
to be issued by an incompetent authority.
13. In view thereof, the said charge-sheet dated
22/12/2020 issued by the District Collector, Dausa is
quashed and set aside. The matter is left open for
the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self
Government, Govt. of Rajasthan to examine the
aspects raised by the petitioner who, without
prejudice, shall examine the reply filed by the
petitioner, all the aspects thereto and take a decision
independently at his own level.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of in the terms
as aforesaid. No order as to costs. All pending
applications also stand disposed of."
[2024:RJ-JD:8367] (3 of 3) [CW-304/2024]
4. Following the reasoning given in the case of Surendra Kumar
Meena (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.
5. The order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure-4) is, hereby,
quashed and set aside.
6. The respondents shall be free to initiate disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with law, while issuing the charge-
sheet by competent authority.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
166-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
