Allowed

Dwarka Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2023CW/8335/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of 14 connected writ petitions seeking quashing of suspension orders against municipal employees voided since April 2019. The Court held that suspension without chargesheet for four years amounts to punishment and made interim stay orders absolute.

What did the court decide?

Interim orders staying suspension made absolute; State permitted to serve charge-sheets within two months; disciplinary proceedings mandated within 18 months.

Dwarka Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8630/2019

¶4

Poonam Chand S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Nai, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Nokha, District- Bikaner (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶9

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8143/2019

¶13

Bharat Gaur S/o Shri Satish Chandra Gaur, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of A-27, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶17

The Driector-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶18

The Commissioner, Municipal Board, Ratan Nagar, District Churu.

¶19

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8260/2019

¶22

Prakash Chandra Khinchad S/o Shri Jhabar Singh, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Delsar Khurd, Post Delsar Kalan, District Jhunjhunu.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

(2 of 8)

The Directorate-Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Department Of Local Self Government, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Civil Line Phatak, 22 Godown, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8263/2019

¶32

Ratan Singh Khandelwal S/o Shri Bhani Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/ o Village Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶36

The Directorate-Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Department Of Local Self Government, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Civil Line Phatak, 22 Godown, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8335/2019

¶39

Dwarka Prasad S/o Sh. Ridhkaran, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Behind Ram Mandir, Chandela Mohalla, Ward No. 22, Churu (Raj.).

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶43

The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶44

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶45

----Respondents

¶46

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8445/2019

¶47

Manohar Singh S/o Late Sh. Hanuman Singh, Aged About 42 Years, B/ c Rajput, R/o Thelasar, Tehsil And District Churu (Raj.).

¶48

----Petitioner

¶49

Versus

¶50

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self

(3 of 8)

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶55

The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶56

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶57

Municipal Board, Ratan Nagar, District Churu, Through Its Executive Officer.

¶58

----Respondents

¶59

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8450/2019

¶60

Indrapal Singh S/o Shri Surajbhan, Aged About 23 Years, Vpo Sherpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶61

----Petitioner

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶64

The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Department Of Local Self Government, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Civil Line Phatak, 22 Godown, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶65

----Respondents

¶66

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8615/2019

¶67

Vinod Vyas S/o Shri Bheru Ratan Vyas, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Vyas, R/o Ward No.-7, Near Raju Public School, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶68

----Petitioner

¶69

Versus

¶70

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶71

The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶72

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶73

----Respondents

¶74

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8650/2019

¶75

Bhawani Shanker Vyas S/o Shri Dev Kishan Vyas, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Vyas, R/o F-105, First Floor, Tirupati Enclave, Opposite

(4 of 8)

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

Kothari Hospital, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶80

----Petitioner

¶81

Versus

¶82

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶83

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶84

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶85

----Respondents

¶86

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8778/2019

¶87

Phusaram Gaur S/o Late Shri Surajmal Gaur, Aged About 60 Years, B/ c Gaur, R/o Ward No.-15, Chaliyawas, Bidsar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶88

----Petitioner

¶89

Versus

¶90

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶91

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶92

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶93

----Respondents

¶94

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8791/2019

¶95

Bhawani Shanker Vyas S/o Shri Dev Kishan Vyas, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Vyas, R/o F-105, First Floor, Tirupati Enclave, Opposite Kothari Hospital, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶96

----Petitioner

¶97

Versus

¶98

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶99

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶100

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner. ----Respondents

¶101

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9198/2019

(5 of 8)

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

Suraj Bhan Prajapat S/o Shri Ramlal Prajapat, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 7, Nai Tanki Ke Pass, Kumharo Ka Chowk, Nokhamandi (Rural), Nokha, District- Bikaner (Raj.).

¶106

----Petitioner

¶107

Versus

¶108

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶109

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶110

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶111

----Respondents

¶112

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9201/2019

¶113

Mohit Khanna S/o Shri Satish Khanna, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Khanna, R/o Ward No. 30, Ladanu, District Nagaur.

¶114

----Petitioner

¶115

Versus

¶116

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶117

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶118

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶119

----Respondents

¶120

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9204/2019

¶121

Naveen Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Prasad Meena, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Meena, R/o Jaipur, District- Alwar (Raj.).

¶122

----Petitioner

¶123

Versus

¶124

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶125

1. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶126

1. The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Bikaner.

¶127

----Respondents

¶128

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]	(6 of 8) [CW-8630/2019]
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.S. Sodha Mr. Shreyansh Bhandari for Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Lokesh Mathur Mr. Dixit Panwar for Mr. Rakesh Matoria Mr. Jayram for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Parihar

¶129

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶130

Order

¶131

11/07/2023

¶132

All these writ petitions involve common facts, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶133

The facts relevant for the purpose are precise. The petitioners are working in different Municipalities.

¶134

A Four Member – Committee was constituted by the State Government by order dated 29.04.2019 to examine the irregularities allegedly done by the Municipalities. Said Committee found various irregularities to have been committed by the Chairman, Executive Officer, Junior Engineer, Junior Accountant, Cashier and other employees of the Municipalities.

¶135

On the basis of the report, vide orders dated (31.05.2019 and 12.06.2019), the petitioners herein were placed under suspension.

¶136

By separate orders, the interim orders were passed by this Court and the suspension of the petitioners was kept in abeyance. 6. Mr. D.S. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had been placed under suspension in the May/June, 2019, but no charge-sheet has yet been served upon them. He argued that as the charge-sheet has not been

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

(7 of 8)

served for such a long time, the suspension deserves to be quashed.

¶141

Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners were placed under suspension by different orders of the State Government and the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. He submitted that as number of employees of different Municipalities were involved, the State has taken substantial time in serving charge-sheets, but this fact alone cannot be a reason to set aside the suspension, unless the petitioners are in a position to establish that the authority passing the order of suspension was not competent or the suspension was otherwise without jurisdiction.

¶142

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. True it is, that the suspension has continued for four years (though stayed by this Court) and the respondents have not been able to serve charge-sheet, but the suspension cannot be quashed on such ground alone. 10. Having regard to the fact that various employees of different municipalities are involved, the preparation of charge-sheet may take some time. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that all the petitioners were suspended under contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. If such suspension continues without serving the chargesheet, the suspension itself is nothing short of punishment. The State’s action of taking four years in serving the charge-sheet cannot be countenanced.

(8 of 8)

[2023:RJ-JD:20753]

[CW-8630/2019]

According to this Court no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners under suspension as the order of suspension has been kept in abeyance for the last four years. The situation which existed in May/June, 2019, must have changed and the petitioners must have been transferred in the meantime.

¶147

Be that as it may. Without going into the correctness of the orders of suspension (as the suspension has been stayed), the interim orders passed in these writ petitions are made absolute. 13. The respondent – State is permitted to serve charge-sheet upon the petitioners (if so desired) within a period of two month from today.

¶148

After serving the charge-sheet, the petitioners shall be allowed to file representation/reply. The disciplinary authority shall take the proceedings in accordance with law while observing Principles of Natural Justice to the fullest, whereafter, final decision will be taken in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of 18 months of service of the chargesheets.

¶149

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶150

Needless to observe that the Court has not pronounced upon the merit of the State’s power to suspend or merit of the petitioners’ delinquency. The inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority shall, therefore, be free to take independent view in the matter in accordance with law.

¶151

Stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶152

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶153

73-86-Mak/-

Dwarka Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarka Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Chandra Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Pal Singh Chouhan Vs Shri Siddhartgh Mahajan

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Smt. Kamli Devi

Prakash Chandra Khinchad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Singh Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan