Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravindra Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:34521]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14092/2025
Ravindra Jain S/o Jawaharlal Jain, Aged About 51 Years, Resident
Of 301, Archi Orbit, Hiranmangri, Sec -4, Udaipur, Posted As
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle A, Udaipur
Presently Under Suspension, With Head Quarter Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Commercial
Tax Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Governance Joint Secretary, Personnel (Kha-3/ Inquiry)
Department, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Ambedkar
Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Param Veer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/08/2025
1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of
memorandum/charge-sheet dated 17.06.2025 (Annex.5).
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges as
framed are totally akin to the charges qua which an investigation
has already been undertaken in pursuance to an FIR.
3. He submits that if the disciplinary proceedings are permitted
to be continued, the defence of the petitioner in the criminal
proceedings shall definitely be disclosed.
4. Counsel while relying upon the judgment passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2682/2021
[2025:RJ-JD:34521] (2 of 3) [CW-14092/2025]
(decided on 13.09.2021) submits that the present petition be also
disposed of in terms of the directions/timeline as issued by the
Court in the said matter.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State is not in a position
to refute the submission of disposal of the petition in light of
Bhagirath Ram's case (supra).
6. In Bhagirath Ram (supra), the Court laid the following
timeline:
"27. The sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over the
petitioner's head over indefinite period. Even if the proceedings
are to be stayed, they cannot be stayed ad infinitum or
infinitely. In order to strike a balance between the petitioner's
rights of defence and zeal to protract the inquiry and State's
anxiety and concern to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and in
order to ward off undue haste or inordinate delay, the writ
petition is disposed of with the following timeline:-
(i) The disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed for a
period of three years from today.
(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
[2025:RJ-JD:34521] (3 of 3) [CW-14092/2025]
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 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."
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in terms of the same directions/timeline as
issued/laid down in Bhagirath Ram (supra).
8. However, as in the present matter, no challan has been filed
in the criminal proceedings till date, it is made clear that if
ultimately after investigation, the investigating authority do not
propose to file any challan against the petitioner or an FR is filed,
the respondents shall be at a liberty to revive the disciplinary
proceedings without waiting for a period of three years.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
300-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
