Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:36076-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1060/2025
Babulal S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jori Ka
Baas, Noowa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue (Group I) Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. District Collector, District Phalodi.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dechu, District Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sunil Joshi.
Mr. Deepesh Birla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with
Mr. Ravindra Jala.
Mr. Deepak Suthar, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
12/08/2025
1. Defects as pointed out by the Registry are overruled.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal with the
following prayers:-
"a) The impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 10.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 9656/2025, Babulal Vs. State of
Raj And Ors. may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) The impugned suspension order dated
05.05.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside
and the writ petition filed by the appellant-
[2025:RJ-JD:36076-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1060/2025]
petitioner may kindly be allowed and the prayer
made in its may kindly be accepted.
c) Any other appropriate order, direction which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of
justice and the appellants-petitioner may kindly be
passed".
3. The controversy in a narrow compass is that the appellant is
a Tehsildar and has challenged his suspension order.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Shisodia assisted by Mr.
Sunil Joshi, appearing for the appellants, while passing the order
of suspension, the respondent Authorities have not made any kind
of preliminary determination which could justify the suspension in
question except for a Circular dated 28.04.2011 (Annex.5) of the
writ petition, which is on record and does not have per se any
bearing on the present factual matrix.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no
illegality has been pointed out which could justify the prejudicial
act of the respondent Authorities to suspend the present
appellant. Learned counsel further submits that vide Paragraph 14
of the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, learned Single Judge
has dealt with the facts of the case and has arrived at a conclusion
which may be detrimental to the cause of justice by prejudicing
the respondent authorities against the present appellant.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the
respondents, submits that the Circular dated 28.04.2011 as relied
on itself contends the language which suggests that the act of the
appellant to have issued agriculturist certificates' in favour of
several incumbents on the basis of registered sale deeds of
[2025:RJ-JD:36076-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1060/2025]
agricultural lands for a meagre area of 40 to 50 square ft. is
sufficient to take an action against the present appellant.
7. On considering the peculiar factual matrix, this Court is of
the opinion that the respondents have proceeded against the
present appellant while holding him prima facie responsible for
violating the circular dated 28.04.2011. However, this Court does
not wish to delve the merits of the case as the suspension order is
only a contemplation of inquiry and at the threshold, is a
procedural step taken by the respondent Authorities and cannot
said to be causing prejudice to the present appellant in the given
context and thus, we keep it open for the appellant to take up all
his issues to defend himself in the Departmental Inquiry, which
the respondent Authorities are contemplating.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of while
making no interference with the suspension order. It is further
made clear that the impugned order shall not cause prejudice to
the rights of the appellant to defend himself in the Departmental
Inquiry, if need arises.
9. Stay application and all pending applications stand disposed
of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
16-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
