Disposed

Bhanu Pratap v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2022CW/19081/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench Writ Petition challenging an order placing the petitioner under suspension. The High Court, relying on Manvendra Singh, directed the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation for reinstatement within four weeks and disposed of an accompanying stay application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to decide representations for reinstatement within four weeks; Stay application disposed of.

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19081/2022

¶4

Bhanu Pratap S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Sihag, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ladariya, Churu, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶9

The Addl. Director (Administration), Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gunjan Sharma For Respondent(s) : -

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

19/12/2022

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

¶17

against the order dated 30.04.2020 (Annex.-3), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶18

The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating 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.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-19081/2022]

¶22

No. 4276/2018 , decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted

¶23

that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary 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 chargesheet 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.

¶24

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 - Disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representations made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

¶25

The needful may be done by the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner would be free to file a further representation alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.

¶27

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶29

244-akansha/-

Bhanu Pratap v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap 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

Shishupal Verma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lata Vaishnav Vs the Secretary

Kanheyalal Gurjer Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaishanker Chhangani Vs State of Rajasthan