Omprakash S/O Birbalram Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:13285]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 663/2025

Omprakash S/o Birbalram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Vpo Dhamora, Tehsil Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Presently Under Suspension From The Post Of Physical Training Instructor (Pti) Grade-III From Prahlad Rai Govt. Senior Secondary School Singnor, Tehsil Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhunu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu.

¶9

The Chief Block Education Officer, Holistic Education, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.

¶10

The Principal, Shri Prahlad Rai Govt. Senior Secondary School Singnor, Tehsil Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhunu.

¶11

Rohitashv S/o Hanuman Prasad, School Lecturer (Political Science), Shri Prahlad Rai Govt. Senior Secondary School Singnor, Tehsil Gudhagodji, District Jhunjhunu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG Mr. Bharat Saini

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Judgment

¶16

Reserved on :: 24/03/2025 Pronounced on :: 4 /04/2025

¶17

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 7^th January, 2025, passed by the respondent No. 3 – The Chief Block Education Officer, whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI)

[2025:RJ-JP:13285]

[CW-663/2025]

(2 of 5)

Grade – III under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1958"). The order of suspension further directs the petitioner to be posted at the office of the Chief Block Education Officer, Holistic Education Buhana during the period of suspension from service.

¶22

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being qualified and having B.A. B.Ed. degree was initially appointed on the post of Physical Training instructor (PTI) Grade-III by the respondent no.3 on 13^th December, 1995, and during his tenure, he was posted in various schools and institutions throughout the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has been serving at Shri Prahlad Rai Government Senior Secondary School, Jhunjhunu since 26^th June, 2023. It was contended that the petitioner’s suspension arises from a dispute which took place on 24.09.2024, when the petitioner requested to Mr. Rohitashv (Lecturer- Political Science) who was also working at Shri Prahlad Rai Government Senior Secondary School Singor, Tehsil Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhnu, who was entrusted with the duty to monitor the prayer meetings of the students, to strop the process of reading newspaper in the morning assembly as only 25 mins. were allotted for morning assembly/prayer activities and the same gets entirely utilized by the act of newspaper reading of Mr. Rohitashv. However, taking it on his esteem and ego Mr. Rohitashv made a complaint to the respondent no. 4 to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner (Copy of complaint dated 24.09.2024 – Annexure – 1).

[2025:RJ-JP:13285]

[CW-663/2025]

(3 of 5)

The respondent No. 4 subsequently ordered the initiation of disciplinary action after recording statements from relevant stakeholders, and the petitioner was resultantly suspended. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that the entire process, including the inquiry committee, the suspension order, and the petitioner’s posting at Buhana, were tainted with malafide intent. Thence, the order of suspension is ought to be set aside.

¶27

4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. B.S. Chhaba, raised the following preliminary objections:

¶28

4.1 That an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner i.e. to prefer an appeal before the Rajasthan Appellate Tribunal (RAT), and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶29

4.2 That the petitioner has concealed his unsatisfactory tenure, as reflected in Annexure R/1, and failed to disclose this information in the petition, as stated in the Form 10.

¶30

4.3 That the inquiry committee conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted a prima facie report on 24^th December, 2024, which revealed allegations of misbehavior and an incident that resulted in the petitioner’s suspension. Therefore, the suspension is not without foundation.

¶31

4.4 That due to the petitioner’s alleged habitual misbehavior, which has harmed the reputation of the institution, the suspension is justified as an act of disciplinary action.

¶32

In light of the above, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed that the present petition be dismissed with heavy costs.

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:13285]

[CW-663/2025]

Having heard the rival contentions leveled by the learned counsel representing the parties and perusing the material placed on record, the Court observes the following:

¶37

6.1 That Annexure R/1 i.e. Personal Details Form (Form-10) reveals that the petitioner had a history of suspensions and adverse reports, as reflected in the Personal Evaluation Report. The petitioner has failed to disclose these facts in the writ petition, thus suppressing material information from the Court. For the sake of convenience the relevant extract from the Personal Details Form (Form-10) is reproduced herein below:

¶38

S. From To date Actual Actual District Block Village State Type of Name and Rura Type of Order No
No. Date Post Subject fo|ky; dk Lohd`r Panchyat/ VillageName / School/Office Place of theSchool/ l/Urba Posting and Date
in o Ward Office n
fo’k; ftl Number
ij dk;Zjr for the
gS@ jgs gS RuralArea
1. 26-06- 01-01- Physical Jhunjhunun Udaipurwati Singnaur Singnaur Mr. Prahlada Rural Posting
2023 2025 Education Rai Govt. after
Teacher Senior APO or
Secondary Suspensi
School on
Singnor
2. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx
3. 14-03- 09-05- Physical Physical Jhunjhunun Udaipurwati Poshana posana GHSS Shaheed Rural Posting 570 09-
2019 2023 Education Education ¼jkmekfo½ Dharmpal after 03-2019
e/;kg e/;kgu Teacher Teacher Siingh Govt. APO or
u iwoZ i”pkr Adarsh Sr.Sec. School Suspension
Posana
4. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx
5. 06-09- 20-02- Physical Physical Jhunjhunun Udaipurwati Bamlas Bamlas GHSS GHSS Rural Posting 1083 05-
2017 2019 Education Education ¼jkmekfo½ Bamlas after 09--2017
e/;kg e/;kgu Teacher Teacher APO or
u iwoZ i”pkr Suspension

¶39

6.2 The inquiry report, prima facie , establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the incident dated 24^th September, 2024. The report indicates that the petitioner’s actions resulted in tarnishing the reputation of the school and its institution, causing harm to its image before the students and the public at large. Such behavior is detrimental to the discipline and reputation of the educational institution.

¶40

It can also be noted that it is well-established in law that a suspension order is not equivalent to a punishment but is

[2025:RJ-JP:13285]

[CW-663/2025]

(5 of 5)

an administrative action taken during the pendency or until completion of a disciplinary inquiry. The purpose of suspension is to ensure that an employee is not allowed to interfere with the investigation or cause further disruption. In the present case, given the lack of harmony between the petitioner and the institution, and the petitioner’s alleged habitual misbehavior, the suspension order cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust.

¶45

In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the matter, and while taking note of the settled principle of law that qui venit ad aequitatem, debat venire cum manu mundi meaning that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the suspension order passed by the respondents, and the present petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner’s claims of malafides and irregularities in the inquiry process is not substantiated with sufficient tangible evidence to warrant judicial intervention at this stage.

¶46

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No orders are passed as to costs. The stay application, if any, is also disposed of.

¶47

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶48

Preeti Asopa

Omprakash S/O Birbalram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash S/O Birbalram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Savita Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr. Sahil Jangra S/O Ramniwas Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Ashok Kumar S/O Om Prakash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sita D/O Neki Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shikha Yadav D/O Naval Kishor Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sherin Koshy D/O Koshy Philip Vs the State of Rajasthan