Udai Lal Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9562 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9562 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Udai Lal Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 August, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:36736]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11582/2021

Udai Lal Meena S/o Sh. Ram Lal Meena, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Kandal, Dist. Udaipur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through        The   Secretary,
         Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.
3.       The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Raj Singh Bhati & Mr. Shailendra
                                   Kumar for Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati,
                                   GC



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

18/08/2025

1. The matter comes upon an application under Article 226(3)

of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated

01.09.2021.

2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

issue in question rests covered by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment

of this Court passed in Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2682/2021 (decided on

13.09.2021).

3. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the

above submission.

[2025:RJ-JD:36736] (2 of 3) [CW-11582/2021]

4. In Bhagirath Ram (supra), the Court observed and held as

under:

"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 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,

[2025:RJ-JD:36736] (3 of 3) [CW-11582/2021]

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."

5. 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).

6. Stay petition and application under Article 226(3) of the

Constitution of India stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

46-KashishS/-