On reference to coordinate bench judgments, this court closed the writ proceedings directed the petitioners to submit a representation with copies of those orders for the respondents to decide within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15765 / 2017
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order
13/09/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Poonia Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 14074 of 2014,
(2 of 3)
[CW-15765/2017]
decided on 29th May, 2015, observing thus:
“Heard. Considered.
In view of submission of counsel for the parties, if no order under Rule 19 of the 1958 Rules has yet been passed, it is directed that before taking any action against the petitioner under Rule 19 of the 1958 Rules, he be given an opportunity of hearing on the question of penalty for reason of his conviction in criminal offences under the 1988 Act as a precursor to the exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the 1958 Rules. Appropriate order be then passed. The entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner be notified of the proceedings taken at his recorded address with the department, and in the event the petitioner does not cooperate with the Disciplinary Authority, the said authority shall be free to proceed ex-parte.”
Learned counsel further submits that till date, no order with reference to termination of the services of the petitioners, have been made.
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Arun Poonia (supra) so also identical view has been taken by another Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the counsel for the State-respondents in the case of Ramkaran Raiger Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 10554 of 2016, decided on 29th November, 2016, within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two
(3 of 3)
[CW-15765/2017]
weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing copies of the orders in the case of Arun Poonia and Ramkaran Raiger (supra).
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/170
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires disposal in light of previous coordinate bench judgments regarding service representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arun Poonia Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶16
Arun Poonia Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 14074 of 2014
Ramkaran Raiger Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶23
Ramkaran Raiger Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 10554 of 2016
Rameshwar Prasad Bunkar and Others
The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others
Veerendra Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
