Dismissed

Ramji Lal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2010CW/1025/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a joint writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued to repatriated government employees. The court rejected the petitioners' claim that lack of relief from posting was a valid excuse for not reporting and left them to face disciplinary action.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands dismissed; petitioners are at liberty to report immediately to the parent department.

Ramji Lal Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

CW 1025/10

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1025/10

¶5

Ramji Lal Sharma & Ors. Versus State & Ors.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 04/03/2010

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

¶8

Mr. Pawan Sharma, for petitioners

¶9

¶10

Joint petition has been filed by three petitioners who are members of Water Resources Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It appears that earlier they were on deputation with Municipal Council, Jaipur, but their deputation was cancelled and they have been repatriated to their parent department vide order dt.16^th September, 2009. But, for one or other reason when they failed to report to their parent department, show causes notices were served to the petitioners dt.11^th January, 2010 for submitting their explanation and reporting to the department within seven days of the notice being served, failing which the disciplinary action U/r.16 of the Rules will be initiated against them.

¶11

Counsel submits that petitioners are ready to join to their parent department but since they have not been relieved, it will be difficult for them to join in pursuance of order dt.16/09/2009. In absence whereof, despite there is an order of Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dt.16^th September, 2009, they

¶12

CW 1025/10

¶13

[2]

¶14

could not have reported to the respective place of posting as directed by their parent department.

¶15

Submission made by Counsel is without merit for the reason that once they have been repatriated by their parent department vide order dt.16^th September, 2009, the petitioners are under an obligation to report in terms of order referred to supra and even the present notice impugned dt.11^th January, 2010 is only providing an opportunity to the petitioners to report within seven days of this notice being served, failing which the disciplinary action will be taken against them. Still liberty is available for the petitioners to report to their parent department before any further prejudicial action being taken against them.

¶16

What has been submitted by Counsel for petitioner is nothing, but a lame excuse which cannot be countenanced by this Court.

¶17

Consequently, I find no substance in the instant petition, the same stands dismissed. However, petitioners are still at liberty to report immediately in terms of order dt.16^th September, 2009 at the place of posting made by their parent department.

¶18

[AJAY RASTOGI], J.

¶19

FRBOHRA1025CW2010 04-03.doc

Ramji Lal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Lal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panna Lal Kumawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shasi Rani Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banwari Lal Vs the Urban Development Housing

Shyam Sunder Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramji Lal Gurjar Vs Jaipur Municipal Corp and Anr.