[2025:RJ-JD:23139]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8550/2025 Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal S/o Ratan Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o A-14 Ricco Housingh Colony, Mandar, District-Sirohi (Rajasthan) Present Working As Village Development Officer, Dhawali, Panchayat Samiti, Reodar, Sirohi (Raj)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Dy. Director Cum Dy. Secretary (Ii), Department Of Panchayati Raj. Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Reodar, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Parikshit Raj Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G. C. with Mr. Nilesh Choudhary and Mr. Deepak Vaishnav HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

13/05/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed against order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-2) whereby the petitioner has been kept APO in contemplation of an enquiry.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is in contravention to Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1951’) which provides that an employee can be kept APO only on the conditions as provided therein.

3. He submits that none of the conditions apply to the order impugned and hence, the same being an order punitive in nature, deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Ramkumar Jat Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16882/2021 and Ganraj Bishnoi & State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115366/2024 submitted that an employee cannot be kept APO as a punitive measure as the same would amount to exercise of the power as contemplated in Rule 13 (1) of the CCA Rules.

5. Learned counsel further submits that despite interim order dated 28.04.2025 been passed in his favour, the petitioner has not been permitted to join the office.

6. On 12.05.2025, learned counsel for the respondents was orally directed to keep resolution dated 15.04.2025 ready for the perusal of the Court vide which an enquiry was recommended to be initiated against the petitioner.

7. Today, office order dated 21.04.2025 has been shown whereby a Committee has been constituted for the purpose of a preliminary enquiry into the matter.

8. Learned counsel further placed on record a factual report to the effect that despite the petitioner having been directed vide order impugned dated 21.04.2025 to handover the charge to the person posted in his place, he has not handed over the charge.

9. So far as interim order dated 28.04.2025 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that infact the petitioner had been relieved prior to order dated 25.04.2025 having been passed and hence, he was not permitted to rejoin.

10. Learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pushkar Lal Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.733/2022 (decided on 24.11.2022) whereby the Court specifically observed that the Government decision referred in Rule 25 A of the Rules of 1951 is not exhaustive rather it is the instances wherein usually a Government servant can be kept APO under the awaiting posting orders.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

12. After perusing order impugned dated 16.04.2025 and office order dated 21.04.2025 placed on record today, this Court is of the clear opinion that order impugned does not deserve any interference as the same has been passed in contemplation of an enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner qua some financial irregularities.

13. As held in Pushkar Lal Mali’s case (supra) Rule 25 A of the Rules of 1951 is not exhaustive and reflects only the instances wherein usually a Government serva