Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinish Garasiya vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:34378]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6340/2025
Vinish Garasiya S/o Kalu Singh Garasiya, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Mor, Po Kushalgarh, Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. Zila Parishad, Banswara Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Banswara, Rajasthan.
4. Panchayat Samiti Kushalgarh, Through Its Development
Officer, Bansawara, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar
petition involving identical facts has already been decided by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.6057/2025; Mahesh Chandra Patel Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 10.07.2025). Counsel submits that
the present petition would also be covered with the said judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department is not in a
position to refute the above submission.
3. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Patel (supra), it was
observed and held as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:34378] (2 of 2) [CW-6340/2025]
"9. A close reading of the documents placed on record
shows that the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and after filing of the F.I.R.,
the matter was investigated and it was found that the
petitioner was involved in obtaining employment by
playing fraud and therefore, the charge-sheet has been
filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the
meantime, the respondents have taken a decision to
dispense with the services of the petitioner, however, the
order dated 13.01.2025 has been passed without there
being any decision of the District Establishment
Committee. However, the District Establishment
Committee has affirmed the decision of the District
Education Officer in its meeting dated 15.04.2025.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decision
of the District Establishment Committee was required to
be taken first and then the order of termination could
have been passed by the District Education Officer.
However, in the present case, a reverse process has been
adopted, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
11. In view of the discussions made above, the present
writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.01.2025 is
quashed and set-aside. However, the respondents are
directed to take appropriate steps for taking action
against the petitioner in accordance with law.
12. The needful shall be done by the authorities
concerned within a period of four weeks from today and it
is made clear that if the petitioner is found innocent and
the order of reinstatement is passed in his favour, then he
will be entitled to all the consequential reliefs."
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
of on the same terms and conditions as in the case of Mahesh
Chandra Patel (supra).
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
1-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
