Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Ramkumar Jat – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16882 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2022
APO - Administrative Order - The court quashed and set aside an order placing the petitioner Awaiting Posting Order (APO) on the grounds that it was contrary to the instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Land Record Inspector, was placed Awaiting Posting Order (APO) purportedly for administrative reasons. The petitioner was subsequently relieved from the position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the practice of placing an officer APO on the grounds of a complaint without addressing the complaint is contrary to the instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The court quashed and set aside the order placing the petitioner APO.
Issues: The issue revolved around the justification of placing the petitioner APO and whether it was in accordance with the provisions of Instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the practice of placing an officer APO without addressing the complaint is contrary to the instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order dated 23.11.2021 placing the petitioner APO, and directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.1) whereby the petitioner has been placed Awaiting Posting Order ('APO') and the order dated 26.11.2021 (Annex.4) whereby pursuant to said order, the petitioner has been relieved.
2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that while working as Land Record Inspector at Circle- Kherwada, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur, by order dated 23.11.2021 the petitioner has been placed APO purportedly indicating for administrative reason. Submissions have been made that the action of the respondents is not justified and is contrary to the provisions of Instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the RSR') and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. By order dated 13.12.2021, it was ordered that in case the petitioner has not been relieved pursuant to order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.1), he shall not be relieved.
4. A response to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that during 'iz'kklu xkaoksa ds lax' campaign, a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding demand of bribe for change of land use and as such, the order was passed placing the petitioner APO. Further submissions have been made that the order impugned does not call for any interference, however, it is conceded that on account of interim order granted by the Court, the petitioner continues to remain posted at the place from where he was placed APO.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. The practice of placing an officer APO, on the purported ground of having received a complaint by indicating that said order has been passed for administrative reason, is essentially taking a easy route qua the complaint received against the officer and by placing the petitioner APO, who is subsequently transferred to some other place and the complaint, which is made, remains unattended and/or is prima-facie accepted by the authorities without any consequence. Such a practice on the part of the respondents cannot be countenanced and is essentially contrary to the instructions issued by the State under Rule 25A of the RSR.
7. Consequently, the order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.1) cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. It will be open for the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The court emphasized that the practice of placing an officer APO without addressing the underlying complaint is contrary to the instructions issued under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951....
Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) cannot be used as punitive measures or substitutes for disciplinary action; explicit reasons must be provided for such administrative decisions.
Administrative decisions affecting service positions must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, comply with existing judicial orders, and be founded on lawful premises.
An authority must have jurisdiction to issue orders; otherwise, such orders are void and cannot be enforced.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Joint Director in passing the order making the petitioner APO and subsequent communications, and the court's decision to qu....
Awaiting posting orders must comply with transfer bans and require proper justification and permissions to be valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
