Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Dhurendra Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents for suspending the petitioner, restraining him to withdraw salary and also for issuing the charge sheet against him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that he was working as a school Lecturer at Government Senior Secondary School, Rol. The petitioner purchased a plot from Himmat Ram vide registered sale deed 21.05.2005, which was alloted to Himmat Ram on 08.07.2000 and granted the permission for construction of house. One Purna Ram challenged the order of Municipal Board by way of revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2008 and ordered for passing a fresh order. Petitioner being unaware of the order passed on 26.02.2008, sold the said property to one Hari Ram vide registered sale deed dated 26.02.2008.
3. Thereafter, one Mahaveer Singh lodged an FIR against Hari Ram, Pokar Ram, Haji Gujar bearing FIR No. 374/2016 before the SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Nagaur. In the FIR, no allegations were made against the petitioner. However, subsequently the investigating officer called the petitioner for submitting the
Suspension and disciplinary actions against an employee must be based on official misconduct, not personal grievances, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures.
The court upheld the suspension of a teacher for misconduct, emphasizing the need for discipline in educational institutions.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
The court upheld the authority's discretion to continue suspension in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for further proceedings.
The right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21, and deprivation without due process is unlawful.
The court affirmed that suspension pending inquiry is a valid administrative measure, provided there is prima facie evidence of misconduct & that natural justice principles must be observed during di....
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
