JAGDISH KUMAR KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sirohi vide order dated 22.07.2004 placed the petitioner under suspension contemplating disciplinary action. The disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 too were initiated against him under a memorandum dated 25.09.2004, however, the same was withdrawn under an office order dated 01.08.2005. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), then passed an order dated 23/25.03.2010 withdrawing the earlier orders pertaining to withdrawal of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under the memorandum dated 25.09.2004. By another order dated 07.05.2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension and initiation of the disciplinary action afresh, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) SO far as suspension of the petitioner is concerned, the same has already been withdrawn by the respondents on 04.06.2010. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once after due application of mind, the respondents had withdrawn the disciplinary action, then there was no occasion for them to re-initiate the same under the order impugned. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard at this stage. From perusal of the order dated 01.08.2005 (Annex.4), it is apparent that the disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in pursuant to the memorandum dated 25.09.2004 decided to drop the disciplinary action. Under the order dated 01.08.2005, the disciplinary authority categorically mentioned that on perusal of the explanation given by the delinquent and on examination of the record, no prima facie case is made out to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings. A conscious decision has been withdrawn by the respondents after a lapse of about four and half years without assigning any reason. It also appears from the perusal of the order dated 23/25.03.2010 that no new material too was available and just by going through a preliminary enquiry report available, a decision was taken for re- initiating the disciplinary proceedings. I do not find any just reason to alter a conscious decision taken by the disciplinary authority under the order impugned which in no manner depicts adequate application of mind. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned dated 23/25.03.2010 is quashed. No order as to costs.