The main legal point established is that the disciplinary authority must consider representations in accordance with specific judgments and relevant rules, and not rely on circulars to reject representations.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- District Collector (Land Records), Dholpur, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Briefly, the facts required to be noted in the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Patwari. On 02.11.2020, an FIR was registered under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. In view of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.11.2020. Aggrieved of the order of suspension, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2021 in the following terms:

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 06.11.2020 (Annex.2), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that challan has not been filed against the petitioner and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge- sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.

In the over all facts and circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondent No.2 - disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representations made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

The needful may be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

The petitioner would be free to file a further representation alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority."

4. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 09.09.2021, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.02.2022 rejected the representation preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a categoric order of this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.C.W. No.4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench, the respondent No.2 has rejected the representation taking recourse to the conditions mentioned in the Circular of State Government dated 07.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 was to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the judgment of Manvendra Singh (supra) and in furtherance thereof, the respondent No.2 was to apply his mind independently and uninfluenced by the Circular of the State Government dated 07.07.2010.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.2 was required to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. He further submits that since the resp