Heera Ram Meghwal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 4501 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Heera Ram Meghwal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2025

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20654/2024

Heera Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Tepa Ram, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Basantgarh, Tehsil-Pindwada, District Sirohi.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The    State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through          The      Secretary,
       Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
       Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.     The Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And
       Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
       Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.     The Additional Commissioner, Deputy Secretary Rural
       Development             And       Panchayati           Raj      Department,
       Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.     The   Chief     Executive         Officer,      Zila       Parishad    Udaipur,
       Rajasthan.
5.     The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
       (Udaipur) Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Sushil Solanki.
For Respondent(s)          :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

14/01/2025

1. Petitioner herein is impugning an order dated 22.06.2024

(Annex.8), vide which his services were put under suspension

without any inquiry of charge-sheet.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner relies

on a judgment rendered in Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.662/2022,

decided on 25.05.2022 by a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur

(2 of 2) [CW-20654/2024]

Bench and states that instead of deciding the controversy afresh

by this Court, petitioners be permitted to file a fresh

representation before the competent authority and the competent

authority be directed to decided the same by passing appropriate

order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid

judgment.

3. Request seems to be fair.

4. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the

requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is

required to be filed by them.

5. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits

of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation, which shall be gone into

by the competent authority and appropriate administrative order

shall be passed in accordance with law.

6. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go

through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner as mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent

mind on the applicability of the same before passing any order.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

8. It is made clear that the direction to consider the

representation shall not be construed as an expression of any

opinion, in any manner.

(ARUN MONGA),J 3-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)