Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Lal Kalal vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 4 August, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1815/2014
Arjun Lal Kalal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 04/08/2014
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1815/2014
Arjun Lal Kalal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 04th August, 2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
Mr. Arjun Lal Kalal, petitioner present in person.
Mr. Harish Babu Sharma, Executive Engineer (Litigation),
O/o CE/WRD/ Zone, Jodhpur.
BY THE COURT:
1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned suspension order of the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department on deputation in the Panchayat Samiti- Kotda, Udaipur.
2. The ground taken for assailing the impugned suspension order is that the competent authority, namely, Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department passed the suspension order way-back on 03.05.2013 once the sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was given by the competent authority, but the present suspension order was passed by the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, Kotda on 07.03.2014, after a lapse of 9-10 months and, therefore, the said order was illegal.
3. While issuing notices in the present writ petition, an interim order was given in favour of petitioner, restraining the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1815/2014 Arjun Lal Kalal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dt: 04/08/2014 2/2 respondents from relieving the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Kotada. After issuance of the notice, reply to writ petition has been filed by the respondent Department, inter-alia raising preliminary objection to the effect that against the suspension order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Rules of 1958).
4. Mr. Harish Babu Sharma, Executive Engineer (Litigation), Office-in-Charge of the case, present in person on behalf of respondents. He reiterated the submissions made in the reply to the writ petition.
5. The lawyers are observing strike, therefore, heard the parties who are present in person.
6. Upon perusal of the pleadings and having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is justified and against the impugned suspension order, an appeal lies under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 to the next higher authority. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal within a period of one month from today and the appeal shall be decided on merits after giving him an opportunity of hearing. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
80