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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1676

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Munnuri Laxman, J
SHYAM SUNDER MEENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2165/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Patel
For the Respondents: Kuldeep Vaishnav

An executive officer, such as the Chief Executive Officer of a Zila Parishad, cannot independently suspend an employee appointed by a Panchayat Samiti without a specific resolution or delegation of authority from the appointing body.

Headnote:The case pertains to Rule 276 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner, serving as a Village Development Officer appointed by the Panchayat Samiti, challenged a suspension order issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. The court observed that the suspension was passed by an authority other than the appointing authority without evident delegation of power. The central issue is whether the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has the jurisdiction to suspend an employee appointed by the Panchayat Samiti. The court reasoned that the Chief Executive Officer and Block Development Officer are merely executive officers tasked with executing decisions of the Zila Parishad or Panchayat Samiti respectively, and in the absence of a specific resolution or delegation, the Chief Executive Officer has no independent authority to act. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 issued by respondent no.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, as well as other consequential relieving orders, shall be stayed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the jurisdiction of the suspending authority relative to the appointing authority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. executive officers lack independent authority to suspend employees without a formal resolution from the appointing body. (Para 4)
3. granting of interim stay and procedural directions for notice and reply. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

Order

1. Heard on the interim application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Panchayat Samiti and is working as a Vikas Adhikari (Village Development Officer) and his appointment was made pursuant to a selection by the District Establishment Committee. On the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee, the Panchayat Samiti took the decision for appointment and that decision has to be implemented by the Block Development Officer or Khand Vikas Adhikari (Block Development Officer). His appointing authority is only the Panchayat Samiti. The suspension has to be made by the Panchayat Samiti through its Executive Officer, who is the Block Development Officer.

3. However, in the present case, the suspension order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. The authority higher than the Panchayat Samiti is the Zila Parishad. If, at all, the Zila Parishad is the higher authority, then the appointing authority, i.e. the Zila Parishad, has taken the decision to suspend and such decision can be implemented by the Chief Executive Officer. However, in the present case, such decision is being taken by the Chief Executive Officer, which is not in accordance with the procedure and is without jurisdiction in the eyes of law.

4. As seen from Rule 276 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, the employees relating to the Zila Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti have to be appointed either by the Zila Parishad or by the Panchayat Samiti. This means that the appointing authority is the Panchayat Samiti in respect of employees to be appointed for the Panchayat Samiti and the Zila Parishad is the appointing authority so far as employees concerned with the Zila Parishad are concerned. The Chief Executive Officer or the Block Development Officer are only Executive Officers who are to execute the decisions of the Zila Parishad or Panchayat Samiti respectively. In the absence of any decision from the Zila Parishad for suspension, the Chief Executive Officer has no independent authority to act unless it is shown that such delegation is given by the Zila Parishad under any resolution. In the present case, no such delegation or authorization is evident, as seen from the impugned order.

5. In the said circumstances, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 (Annex.9) issued by respondent no.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, as well as other consequential relieving orders, shall be stayed.

6. Admit.

7. Issue notice to the respondents.

8. Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, learned DGC appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Hence, service upon respondents is treated as complete.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply, if any, by the next date of hearing.

10. Respondents are at liberty to file an application for seeking vacation of interim order.

11. Post the matter on 19.03.2026

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top