Disposed

Rajesh Barasa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2023CW/1674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged a suspension order and sought reinstatement. Relying on the Manvendra Singh judgment, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks in light of the Manvendra Singh judgment.

Rajesh Barasa Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011088]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1674/2023

¶4

Rajesh Barasa S/o Shri Basant Raj, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Nawal Ashram, Bai Jee Ka Talab, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Government, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Commissioner, Municipal Board Jodhpur (North), Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

20/04/2023

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 24.08.2021 (Annex.5), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶15

It is, inter alia, indicating that 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.

¶16

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 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

[2023/RJJD/011088]

[CW-1674/2023]

(2 of 2)

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.

¶21

In the over all facts & 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 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).

¶22

The needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

¶23

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief.

¶24

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶25

48-SanjayS/-

Rajesh Barasa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Barasa 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

Kartikey Rathore (Minor) Vs Union of India

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Hariom Transport Company Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Mool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Vs Askaran Singh

Shri Rajendra Sansthan/ Bhinmal Vs State of Rajasthan