Jitendra Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3745 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jitendra Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:626]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20089/2024

Jitendra Meena S/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Nagar Palika Colony, Prem Kunj Amet, Rajsamand At Present Patwari (Suspended) Head Quarter District Collectorate Office, Rajsamand.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Revenue, Rajasthan Jaipur

2. District Collector, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Ms. Deepika Soni
                                    Ms. Shilpa Soni
For Respondent(s)             :          -



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

06/01/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 10.11.2022 (Annex.-6), whereby the

petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that

already challan against the petitioner has been filed and despite

passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been

reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review

and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to

judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW

No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted

[2025:RJ-JD:626] (2 of 2) [CW-20089/2024]

that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of

the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958

and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and

has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government

laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension

order after a period of three years from the date of

suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge-

sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the

authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even

prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.

4. In the over all fact circumstances of the case as projected as

well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra

Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed

of, the respondent- disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the

representation made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in

the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

5. The needful may be done by the respondent within a period

of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the

petitioner.

6. The petitioner would be free to file a further representation

alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.

7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 8-raksha/-Court No.8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)