Dismissed

Maksood Ahmed v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2022CW/5480/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged show cause notices regarding recovery of alleged irregularities in services. The High Court dismissed the petitions as petitioners were already exonerated of all charges in subsequent inquiry proceedings, allowing consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; petitioners entitled to consequential benefits from exoneration in inquiry proceedings.

Maksood Ahmed Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5480/2012

¶3

Maksood Ahmed S/o Shri Noor Mohd., aged about 51 years, by caste Musalman, resident of Badi Jasolai, Chokhunti Bikaner, Near the Ramdev Temple, District Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

District Collector & Programme Coordinator, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶8

Additional District Programme Coordinator cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad (Rural Development), Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5268/2012

¶12

Iadan Ram S/o Prem Singh, aged about 49 years, by caste Jat, resident of Village Post Palana, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶16

District Collector & Programme Coordinator, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶17

Additional District Programme Coordinator cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad (Rural Development), Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Manish Patel
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Manish Tak, Dy. G.C. with
	Mr.	RajdeepSingh

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-5480/2012]

¶22

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶23

Order

¶24

17/08/2022

¶25

The present petitions have been filed against the show cause notices dated 08.05.2012 whereby the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules be not initiated against them and further they were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.4,49,289/- and Rs.1,21,689/- respectively, the amount alleged to be recoverable from them qua the irregularities conducted by them in their services.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuance to the said notices, the inquiry proceedings have already been undertaken by the department and they have been exonerated in the same of all the charges.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have been exonerated of all the charges in the inquiry proceedings.

¶28

In view of the submissions made, as the petitioners have already been exonerated by the department, nothing survives in the present petitions. The petitions are therefore disposed of. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would be entitled to all the consequential benefits arisen because of their exoneration.

¶29

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

15-16/AnilKC/-

Maksood Ahmed v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maksood Ahmed v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Bijarniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Bharti Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Mahendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Manroop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Iadan Ram Vs State and Ors.