Ram Lal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was serving as Village Development Officer in the office of Panchayat

Samiti, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar, two FIRs (No.57/2019 & 64/2019) were lodged against his son Rajesh Kumar. In these FIRs, the

petitioner was also implicated along with his son. In pursuance of the FIRs registered against the petitioner, he remained in police custody and judicial

custody for more than 48 hours. Thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.07.2019 (Annex.5) and he was released from

the custody on 16.09.2019.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner preferred an appeal/ representation before the competent authority under Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for revocation of his suspension. The appeal/representation is placed on record by the

petitioner as Annex.6 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment rendered by this court at Jaipur Bench on 21.12.2018 in Manvendra Singh V. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No.4276/2018 submits that 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 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.

In the background of the facts narrated above, the counsel for the petitioner prays that the appeal/representation submitted by the petitioner should be

considered and decided strictly in accordance with law.

Having considered the facts noticed above and law laid down by this court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the present petition is disposed of

with a direction to the respondent No.2- Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar (disciplinary authority) to consider and decide the

appeal/ representation made by the petitioner (Annex.6) in the light of the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra)

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to file a detailed representation along with all requisite documents before the competent

disciplinary authority for redressal of his grievance.