SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13303

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUNNURI LAXMAN
LAL CHAND BALAI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 23212 / 2025



[2025:RJ-JD:52857]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23212/2025 Lal Chand Balai S/o Shri Chouth Mal Balai, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 3MB - 214, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Currently Posted At Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Cooperative Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

3. The General Manager, (Personnel And Administration), Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

4. Managing Director, Sriganganagar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal Mr. Vineet Dave Mr. Kaushik Dave HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

06/12/2025

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2025 (Annex.15) passed by respondent No.4, the Managing Director of Sriganganagar, placing the petitioner under suspension based on the communication dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

3. The brief facts of the case indicate that the petitioner is in the cadre of Deputy Manager Plant, Dugdh Sangh, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Milk Union, Jodhpur’). The petitioner was initially appointed in the cadre of Assistant Manager in Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Hanumangarh (Raj.) (herienafter referred to as ‘Milk Union, Hanumangarh’) by the competent authority and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Plant by respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted to the post of Managing Director, Milk Union Jodhpur, with the consent of both the Union and the approval of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited. While serving in that position, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.09.2024 (Annex.4) and the said suspension order was challenged before this Court through the writ petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16541/2024. By order dated 23.01.2025 (Annex.6), this Court suspended the operation of the suspension order and directed the petitioner to be reinstated in the same position, he held prior to the suspension. Subsequently, a charge- sheet was issued, which the petitioner challenged through S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18698/2024, and further proceedings on the charge-sheet were stayed by order dated 18.11.2024 (Annex.5).

4. The petitioner was subsequently allowed to continue in the Jodhpur Union and thereafter, by order dated 31.01.2025 (Annex.10), the petitioner was transferred from the Milk Union, Jodhpur to the Milk Union, Hanumangarh. This transfer was also assailed before this Court through writ petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4160/2025 before the learned Single Judge and the said writ petition was initially dismissed. Challenging the dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.442/2025 and in the said appeal, this Court, by order dated 03.07.2025, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Managing Director, Milk Union, Jodhpur. While serving in this position, the present impugned orders were passed by the Dairy Milk Union, Hanumangarh. By order dated 21.11.2025 (Annex.15), the petitioner was again suspended and this suspension order is now being challenged through the present writ petition.

5. The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension was passed by an incompetent authority. According to him, the competent authority to suspend the petitioner is the Board of Directors of Milk Union. Another argument advanced is tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top