Disposed

Kamal Chand Khatuwal S/O Gulab Chand Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2021CW/3824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court directed the respondent's disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation in light of the Manvendra Singh judgment, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disciplinary authority directed to decide petitioner's representation in light of Manvendra Singh judgment within four weeks.

Kamal Chand Khatuwal S/O Gulab Chand Kumawat Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3824/2021

¶3

Kamal Chand Khatuwal S/o Gulab Chand Kumawat, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-27, Satya Marg, Dundlod Colony, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Order

¶11

15/09/2021

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of suspension dated 13.08.2019 (Annex.1).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is under suspension for over two years, which fact learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute.

¶14

It is, inter alia, indicated that already challan against the petitioner has been filed and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018 , decided on 21.12.2018 submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary

¶16

(2 of 2) [CW-3824/2021]

¶17

authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge-sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.

¶18

In the over all fact circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondent No.3-disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representation to be made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

¶19

The needful may be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

¶20

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶21

200-PRADEEP KUMAR LIMBA /686

Kamal Chand Khatuwal S/O Gulab Chand Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Chand Khatuwal S/O Gulab Chand Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lehri Bai Vs Nand Lal

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Geeta Kumari D/O Shri Phool Chand Dangi W/O Shri Shantaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumari Suman Daughter of Shri Birdhi Lal Suman, Wife of Shri Lalit Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Sharma Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Smt Farebi Devi Vs R S R T C and Anr.