Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23139) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:23139]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8550/2025
Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal S/o Ratan Lal Khandelwal, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o A-14 Ricco Housingh Colony, Mandar,
District-Sirohi (Rajasthan) Present Working As Village
Development Officer, Dhawali, Panchayat Samiti, Reodar, Sirohi
(Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Dy. Director Cum Dy. Secretary (Ii), Department Of
Panchayati Raj. Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Reodar, Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Parikshit Raj Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G. C. with
Mr. Nilesh Choudhary and
Mr. Deepak Vaishnav
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed against order dated
16.04.2025 (Annexure-2) whereby the petitioner has been kept
APO in contemplation of an enquiry.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
impugned is in contravention to Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service
Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1951') which
[2025:RJ-JD:23139] (2 of 4) [CW-8550/2025]
provides that an employee can be kept APO only on the conditions
as provided therein.
3. He submits that none of the conditions apply to the order
impugned and hence, the same being an order punitive in nature,
deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Ramkumar Jat Vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.16882/2021 and Ganraj Bishnoi & State of Rajasthan &
Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115366/2024 submitted that
an employee cannot be kept APO as a punitive measure as the
same would amount to exercise of the power as contemplated in
Rule 13 (1) of the CCA Rules.
5. Learned counsel further submits that despite interim order
dated 28.04.2025 been passed in his favour, the petitioner has not
been permitted to join the office.
6. On 12.05.2025, learned counsel for the respondents was
orally directed to keep resolution dated 15.04.2025 ready for the
perusal of the Court vide which an enquiry was recommended to
be initiated against the petitioner.
7. Today, office order dated 21.04.2025 has been shown
whereby a Committee has been constituted for the purpose of a
preliminary enquiry into the matter.
8. Learned counsel further placed on record a factual report to
the effect that despite the petitioner having been directed vide
order impugned dated 21.04.2025 to handover the charge to the
person posted in his place, he has not handed over the charge.
[2025:RJ-JD:23139] (3 of 4) [CW-8550/2025]
9. So far as interim order dated 28.04.2025 is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that infact the
petitioner had been relieved prior to order dated 25.04.2025
having been passed and hence, he was not permitted to rejoin.
10. Learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Pushkar Lal Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.733/2022 (decided on 24.11.2022)
whereby the Court specifically observed that the Government
decision referred in Rule 25 A of the Rules of 1951 is not
exhaustive rather it is the instances wherein usually a Government
servant can be kept APO under the awaiting posting orders.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
12. After perusing order impugned dated 16.04.2025 and office
order dated 21.04.2025 placed on record today, this Court is of
the clear opinion that order impugned does not deserve any
interference as the same has been passed in contemplation of an
enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner qua some financial
irregularities.
13. As held in Pushkar Lal Mali's case (supra) Rule 25 A of the
Rules of 1951 is not exhaustive and reflects only the instances
wherein usually a Government servant can be kept under awaiting
posting orders. Meaning thereby if there is any allegation against
an employee pertaining to a financial irregularity, and he has been
kept APO in contemplation of a preliminary enquiry, the same
cannot be faulted with.
14. Further, it is evident that a Committee has already been
constituted to initiate preliminary enquiry in the matter.
[2025:RJ-JD:23139] (4 of 4) [CW-8550/2025]
15. Furthermore, even otherwise, the order of APO cannot
survive for a period of more than 30 days and hence order dated
16.04.2025 would itself loose its efficacy after a period of 30 days
and appropriate consequential orders would be required to be
passed by the respondent-Authorities after lapse of the said
period.
16. So far as interim order dated 28.04.2025 is concerned, a
bare perusal of the same reflects that vide the said order it was
clearly observed that the petitioner would not be relieved from his
present place of posting, if he had not been relieved till the said
date. A perusal of order impugned dated 21.04.2024 reflects that
the petitioner on the said date, vide a written order, was directed
to handover the charge to the new incumbent which clearly means
relieving him of his official duties. Therefore, the action of the
respondents in not permitting the petitioner to rejoin cannot be
faulted with.
17. No case for interference at this stage is made out and the
writ petition is hence, dismissed.
18. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
325-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
