ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.08.2021 (Annex.21), whereby in pending proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules of 1958’), exercising powers under Rule 19(i) based on conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case, he has been dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner, who was serving as Senior Teacher (English) at Government Senior Secondary School, Damodra, Block Sam, District Jaisalmer came to be convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh under Section 498A IPC by judgment dated 04.02.2021 with punishment of simple imprisonment for one year and Rs.500/- as penalty.

3. The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment dated 04.02.2021, the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh by its order dated 10.02.2021, suspended the sentence passed by the trial court on 04.02.2021.

4. By order dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.11), the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 and was relieved on 01.04.2021.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the order of suspension, the petitioner filed SBCWP No.6981/2021, which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file appeal on 12.05.2021. The appeal was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958.

6. On 21.05.2021 (Annex.16), the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on account of his conviction by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The petitioner responded to the said charge-sheet by the response (Annex.18), inter-alia, seeking time to produce request documents. Whereafter, filed a detailed response on 14.06.2021 (Annex.19) and further communication dated 29.07.2021 (Annex.20).

7. The competent authority by its order dated 10.08.2021, noticing the circumstances, the contentions raised by the petitioner and coming to the conclusion that instead of continuing with the proceedings under Rule 16, it would be appropriate to exercise powers under Rule 19(i) of the Rules of 1958, recorded his satisfaction for exercising of the said powers and passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service.

8. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 10.08.2021, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13.08.2021.

9. It appears that an advance copy was supplied to the respondents, who sought time to file reply and the matter remained pending.

10. On 15.03.2022, when the matter came up before the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that conviction of the petitioner has been stayed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.191/2022 on 04.03.2022.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for and was granted time to file reply. A reply to the petition has been filed on 17.04.2022.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the order impugned dated 10.08.2021 has been passed by the respondents exercising powers under Rule 19(i) of the Rules of 1958 on account of conviction of the petitioner by the criminal court while the proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 were pending.

13. Submissions have been made that as the conviction of the petitioner has been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.03.2022, basis on which the order impugned dated 10.08.2021 was passed by the respondents, having come to an end, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

14. Submissions have been made that looking to the nature of proceedings, wherein the allegations against the petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC, were not proved and charges under Section 498-A IPC, which allegations were made after the petitioner had filed proceedings for divorce, as counter blast and therefore, the competent authority should have examined the matter in correct perspective. Further submissions have been made that as now the conviction of the petitioner has been stayed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for reins