Disposed

Sugan Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2024CW/222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposes of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The High Court directs the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation on reinstatement within three months, citing a previous judgment on revocation of suspension. No final verdict is given pending verification of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to disciplinary authority to decide representation on reinstatement within three months.

Sugan Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1131]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2024

¶4

Sugan Chand S/o Shri Gopi Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of House No. 4D4, Sadbhawana Nagar, P.s.sadar, District, Sriganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sriganganagar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Solanki a/w Ms. Ayushi
	Solanki
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

09/01/2024

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 28.12.2022 (Annex.1), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 2. It is, inter alia, indicating that challan against the petitioner is filed and despite passage of sufficient time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

¶15

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

[2024:RJ-JD:1131]

[CW-222/2024]

(2 of 2)

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. 4. 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).

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶23

22-/Jitender//-

Sugan Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugan Chand v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Lodha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Raghuveer Singh Bhati Vs the State of Rajasthan

Girraj Prasad Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashoka Ram Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Singh Bhati Vs Union of India

Rajkumar Harijan Vs State of Rajasthan