Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sushil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13890) on 12 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:13890]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5707/2025
Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Village Jaroda Kallan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Meta, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Devesh Mehta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
12/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, working on the post of Gram Vikas
Adhikari, is before this Court, inter-alia, seeking quashing of the
order dated 03.03.2025 (Annex.3), vide which he has been placed
under Awaiting Posting Order ('APO').
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that
the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 is in violation of judgment
rendered by this very Bench in Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15366/2024,
decided on 17.02.2025, in as much as, no reasons as
contemplated under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
[2025:RJ-JD:13890] (2 of 3) [CW-5707/2025]
have been conveyed to the petitioner. He would say that the bare
reading of the order itself reflects that the petitioner has been
placed under APO category for reasons other than what have been
envisaged under Rule 25A.
3. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG appears on advance service and
points out that the petitioner has been rather dealt with leniently
by the competent authority, placing him under APO as there are
serious charges against him as is borne out from the bare reading
of the order impugned.
4. Having read the order, it transpires that the respondents are
contemplating disciplinary proceedings against him and pending
the same, they have rather taken a lenient view and placed him
merely under APO instead of suspending him.
5. Be that as it may, the reasons for passing the impugned
order placing the services of the petitioner under APO are in
conflict with the following guidelines laid down in Gana Ram ibid :-
"22. While concluding, in order to avoid needless litigation in
future, it is deemed appropriate to frame following guidelines to
invoke Rule 25-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:-
Guidelines on Awaiting Posting Orders (APO)
1. Purpose and Justification of APO :
(i). It must be issued based on administrative necessity or public
interest and not as a punitive measure.
(ii). The reason for placing an employee under APO must be
explicitly stated in writing.
(iii). APO should not be used as a substitute or ruse for
disciplinary action.
2. Conditions for Issuing APO :
2.1. Awaiting Posting Order is "usually" to be passed in the
following circumstances under Rule 25-A of Rajasthan Service
Rules, 1951:
(i). Returning from leave.
(ii). Reverting to the parent department after deputation.
(iii). Returning from training (domestic or foreign).
[2025:RJ-JD:13890] (3 of 3) [CW-5707/2025]
(iv). Awaiting posting after relinquishing a previous post.
(v). Non-acceptance of the officer's transfer to another post.
(vi). Preventing the reversion of a government servant.
2.2. Though the conditions mentioned in Rule 25-A are
illustrative, but any other condition proposed to be invoked must
align with similar administrative necessity (principle of ejusdem
generis).
3. Limitations and Restrictions:
(i). APO cannot be used to circumvent Rule 13 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
1958, which governs suspensions.
(ii). APO should not exceed 30 days unless approved by the
Finance Department with valid justification.
(iii). Prolonged APO status without proper cause is misuse of
authority.
4. Administrative Accountability:
(i). Reason for an APO order to the concerned employee/official
must be conveyed.
(ii). Ensure timely issuance of future posting orders to prevent
unnecessary financial burden on the government.
(iii). APO orders that amount to de facto suspension or serve as a
means to delay the proposed disciplinary action should be
avoided."
6. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annex.3) is set-aside with
liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in
accordance with law including contemplated action, if any, under
Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1958.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
26-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
