Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Meena vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 20 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:19178]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1930/2026
PETITIONER:
Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shishupal Ji, Age 50 years, R/o
Village & Post Hingonia, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota.
Versus
RESPONDENT:
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., New Power House, Jodhpur.
Through its Secretary (Admn.)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Arora Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Bhavit Sharma Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment 20/04/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 (Annx.11) to the extent of continuing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order in the Office of Zonal Chief Engineer (BZ), JdVVNL, Bikaner may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to give regular posting to the petitioner commensurate to his designation.
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed."
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Rajendra Choudhary, Technician, committed suicide on 28.03.2025 while posted under the office of Junior Engineer, Nimaj. On the next day, i.e., 29.03.2025, an FIR bearing No.118/2025 came to be lodged at Police Station Jaitaran, District Beawar for offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (2 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] deceased was subjected to harassment by the present petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Engineer at Jaitaran. It is stated that after investigation, the police submitted a final negative report, finding no material to proceed against the petitioner. Though the complainant sought time to file a protest petition, no criminal proceedings are stated to be pending against the petitioner as on date.
3. Immediately after the incident, the petitioner was placed under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) vide order dated 29.03.2025. Subsequently, on 12.05.2025, he was placed under suspension on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report of a committee constituted by the respondent-department, which prima facie opined that the petitioner was responsible for harassment of the deceased.
4. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet dated 10.06.2025 under Regulation 7 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Regulations of 1962'). The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet.
5. In the meantime, petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension remained undecided which compelled him to file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21089/2025, wherein this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2025, stayed the operation of the suspension order. In purported compliance thereof, the respondents passed order dated 11.12.2025, whereby instead of reinstating the petitioner on a regular post, he was continued (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (3 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] under APO at Bikaner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the suspension order itself has been stayed by this Court, the natural and logical consequence was reinstatement of the petitioner on a regular posting. Continuation under APO, despite judicial intervention, amounts to circumventing the order of this Court.
7. It is further contended that the very foundation of the allegations, namely the criminal case, has culminated in a negative final report, and therefore, continuation of adverse service conditions like APO is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is argued that APO is not to be resorted to as a punitive or indefinite measure and can be invoked only in limited contingencies as per Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which are applicable in the present case. The impugned order, it is submitted, is non-speaking and suffers from total non-application of mind. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon judgment of this Court in Dr. Tejpal Katewa vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1412/2026 decided on 24.03.2026).
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner, inasmuch as he is only under APO pending departmental enquiry. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, particularly the fact that even prior (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (4 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] to suspension, he was already placed under APO on 29.03.2025 in contemplation of enquiry, and therefore, restoration of the said status cannot be said to be illegal.
10. It is further submitted that the departmental enquiry is based on independent findings of the enquiry committee and is not solely dependent on the criminal proceedings. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings being different, the negative police report does not absolve the petitioner.
11. It is also urged that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable circulars and administrative instructions.
12. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
13. At the outset, the undisputed facts, which emerged from the record are that the suspension order dated 12.05.2025 has been stayed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the criminal case registered against the petitioner has culminated in a negative final report. The petitioner is presently not under suspension, but is continued under APO since 29.03.2025 and even after the stay of suspension, he has not been given any regular posting; and the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 does not assign any reason for continuing the petitioner under APO.
14. The core issue, therefore, is whether continuation of the petitioner under APO, despite stay of suspension and absence of any cogent reason, can be sustained in law.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (5 of 11) [CW-1930/2026]
15. It is trite law that "Awaiting Posting Order" is not a recognised punitive measure. It is an administrative arrangement, to be resorted to in exigencies and cannot be continued indefinitely so as to virtually sideline an employee without justification. Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, as well as the governing administrative instructions, clearly indicate that APO is to be exercised sparingly and for valid reasons.
16. In the present case, the impugned order is conspicuously silent as to why the petitioner has been continued under APO. No reasons, much less cogent reasons, have been assigned. Such an order, affecting the service conditions of an employee, cannot withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17. So far as the pendency of departmental enquiry is concerned, it is well settled that mere pendency of enquiry does not justify keeping an employee under APO for an indefinite period, particularly when there is no allegation that the petitioner would interfere with the enquiry or tamper with evidence.
18. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in Dr. Tejpal Katewa(supra) squarely applies, wherein it has been held that prolonged continuation under APO, without valid justification, is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. The ratio laid down therein is that administrative arrangements cannot be used as a substitute for punitive measures without due process. Relevant part of the above judgment is being reproduced as under:
11. In the present case, the stand of the respondents unequivocally reveals that the petitioner was placed under APO on account of complaints and pending disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the very foundation of the (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (6 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] impugned order is the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, the action of placing the petitioner under APO, instead of initiating appropriate proceedings under the CCA Rules, 1958, clearly amounts to bypassing the statutory framework. This is apparently impermissible in law.
12. It would be relevant to refer judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Sukumar Kashyap vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7010/2020 decided on 14.10.2020), where while dealing with the provisions of Rule 25A of the RSR, it was observed as under:
"It is no doubt true that the provisions of Rule 25A of the Rules, 1951 only deal with the 'pay during A.P.O.' and do not indicate any substantive provision/parameters for which an officer can be placed A.P.O. However, Government of Rajasthan decisions under Rule 25A of the Rules, 1951 have elaborately dealt with the practice of placing government servants under A.P.O., which inter alia has referred to the previous instructions and has emphasized that the Administrative Department should avoid keeping government employees A.P.O. as a routine or as an option to disciplinary action, besides indicating the circumstances in which the orders can be passed. The circumstances indicated essentially deal with the cases where an employee, who was on leave, deputation, had gone abroad, was on training etc., when joins back, can be placed A.P.O. xxxxxxxxxxxx.
As noticed hereinbefore, the instructions under Rule 25A of the Rules, 1951 have taken note of the practice of placing an officer A.P.O. as an option to disciplinary action and has deprecated the said practice. Even otherwise, it is well settled that no administrative action in the nature of punishment can be taken against a Government servant in the guise of passing some other order like transfer and/or placing A.P.O. In view thereof, based on the specific admission of the respondents regarding the order having been passed on account of alleged conduct of the petitioner, the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner A.P.O. cannot be sustained."
13. Further in another judgment delivered by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10490/2024, decided on 09.09.2024), dealing with the order of awaiting posting, it was observed as under:
"This Court, therefore, is firmly of the view that the awaiting posting order cannot be passed in a casual and mechanical manner, more particularly when the ban was imposed by the State Government. The sanctity of the ban is required to be adhered to by the State Functionaries."
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (7 of 11) [CW-1930/2026]
15. Further, the doctrine of malice in law squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Malice in law does not necessarily imply personal ill-will, but refers to an action taken for an unauthorised purpose or in disregard of the law. When a statutory power is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it is conferred, the action stands vitiated.
16. In the instant case, Rule 25A has been invoked ostensibly for administrative purposes, but in reality, to deal with alleged misconduct of the petitioner. This constitutes a classic case of malice in law, as the power has been exercised for an extraneous purpose.
22. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the impugned action of placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) is founded not upon any legitimate administrative exigency contemplated under Rule 25A of the RSR, but on the basis of alleged misconduct and proposed disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have themselves admitted that the order was necessitated due to complaints and pending enquiries against the petitioner. Such a course of action clearly reveals that the statutory power under Rule 25A of the RSR has been invoked not for its intended purpose, but as a substitute for disciplinary action.
23. This Court is of the considered view that once allegations of misconduct form the basis of action, the only legally permissible course is to proceed in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1958. Resorting to an APO order in such circumstances amounts to bypassing the mandatory statutory procedure, thereby rendering the action arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
24. In addition to the above, as per the administrative instructions issued by the respondent-State, an APO order is ordinarily not to be continued beyond a period of 30 days and is required to be substituted by a posting order within the said period. However, in the present case, the impugned APO order against the petitioner was passed on 29.10.2025 and despite the lapse of nearly five months, no order assigning a posting to the petitioner has been issued till date. Further, no reason whatsoever, much less any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, has been placed on record by the respondents to justify the continuation of the APO beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. This factor also casts a serious doubt on the bona fides of the respondents.
25. The impugned action, therefore, squarely attracts the doctrine of malice in law, inasmuch as the power has been exercised for a purpose foreign to the one for which it is conferred. It is a classic instance of colourable exercise of power, where the authority, instead of adopting the procedure prescribed by law, has chosen an indirect route to achieve the same result. Such an action cannot be countenanced in law, as it undermines the rule of law and erodes the procedural safeguards guaranteed to a public servant.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (8 of 11) [CW-1930/2026]
26. Additionally, the respondents have not demonstrated that the case of the petitioner falls within any of the contingencies contemplated under Rule 25A of the RSR or the Government clarification thereto. The action, therefore, lacks statutory backing."
19. This Court is also of the view that keeping an employee under APO for a prolonged period results not only in financial burden on the State without extracting work, but also causes undue miscarriage of justice to the employee.
20. An additional aspect which requires specific consideration is the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that since prior to issuance of the suspension order, the petitioner was already under Awaiting Posting Order and was not holding any substantive posting, the natural consequence of stay of suspension would be restoration of status quo ante, meaning thereby, continuation of the petitioner under APO. This submission, though attractive at first sight, does not withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be rejected as misconceived. The concept of status quo ante cannot be applied in a mechanical manner so as to defeat the very purpose and intent of the judicial order. The stay of suspension granted by this Court was intended to restore the petitioner to the mainstream of service and not to perpetuate a condition which effectively sidelines him without assignment of duties. If the stand of the respondents is accepted, it would amount to permitting them to achieve indirectly what they could not do directly, thereby rendering the stay order otiose and nugatory.
21. It is equally well settled that Awaiting Posting Order cannot be used as a substitute or an alternative to suspension.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (9 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] During the pendency of a departmental enquiry, if the employer deems it necessary to keep an employee away from active duties, the course available in law is to resort to suspension in accordance with rules; however, once such suspension is interfered by a judicial order, the employer cannot circumvent the same by continuing or reverting the employee to APO. The action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under the pre-suspension APO, despite stay of suspension, clearly reflects an attempt to bypass the effect of the judicial order and reflects a degree of arbitrariness which, in legal parlance, amounts to malice in law.
22. Even otherwise, Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules circumscribes the scope and purpose of placing an employee under APO. The said provision contemplates such arrangement only for limited administrative exigencies and for a short, transitional duration. It does not envisage indefinite or prolonged continuation under APO, particularly in a manner that adversely affects an employee. In the present case, continuation of the petitioner under APO for an uncertain and extended period, without any demonstrable administrative necessity, is clearly de- hors the scheme of the Rules and cannot be countenanced in law.
23. Another objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that since the petitioner has not specifically challenged initial order dated 29.03.2025 whereby he was first placed under Awaiting Posting Order, the present writ petition, which is confined to the subsequent order dated 11.12.2025 continuing such arrangement, would not be maintainable for grant of substantive relief. This Court finds no merit in the said (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (10 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] objection. The cause of action for the petitioner has arisen from the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, which, despite the stay of suspension by this Court, continues the petitioner under APO without justification. The relief sought by the petitioner, namely, a direction to grant him a regular posting commensurate with his designation, is substantive and sufficient for adjudication of the present controversy. It is well settled that hyper-technical objections relating to the form of relief or challenge cannot be permitted to defeat substantial justice, particularly when the impugned action is found to be arbitrary and unsustainable in law. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to mould the relief appropriately to do complete justice between the parties. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent is rejected.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that impugned order dated 11.12.2025, to the extent it continues the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order, is arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 is quashed and set aside to the extent indicated above. The respondents are directed to forthwith give a regular posting to the petitioner commensurate with his designation, within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (11 of 11) [CW-1930/2026]
26. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental enquiry in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/293 (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) (Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:38:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)