HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13021/2021

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

District Collector, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Ashmita (Asmita) Singh W/o Shri Rai Singh, Aged About

46 Years, Permanent Resident Of 58, Rathore Nagar,

Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

2.

Board Of Revenue, Through Its Registrar, Rajasthan,

Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Akshay Sharma, Addl.G.C.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate

through VC with Mr. Abhishek Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

24/11/2021

By this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the legality

and validity of the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘the

learned Tribunal’) whereby, the suspension order dated

04.10.2021 passed in respect of respondent no.1/appellant (for

brevity, ‘the appellant’) has been stayed and the petitioners have

been directed to let her work at her prior place of posting where

she was posted by the competent authority.

The facts in brief are that vide order dated 04.10.2021, the

appellant, a Tehsildar posted at Sanganer, District Jaipur, was

placed under suspension by the District Collector, Jaipur, in

contemplation of a departmental enquiry. It was directed therein

(2 of 17)

[CW-13021/2021]

that during the period of suspension, her headquarter shall remain

at the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘the

BOR’). The validity of the aforesaid order was challenged by the

appellant by way of an appeal no.5142/2021 before the learned

Tribunal, which has, vide order impugned dated 26.10.2021,

granted ad-interim relief to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that order of

the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction as suspension is not

covered under ‘service conditions’ as enumerated in Section 2(f)

of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate

Tribunals) Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’). Relying on a

Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06.01.1998 passed in

D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.777/1996, State Insurance &

GPF Department, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services

Appellate Tribunal and Ors., learned counsel submitted that

therein, while considering the case of termination simplicitor of an

employee, it was held that the learned Tribunal did not have

jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involving termination

simplicitor as it was not covered under any of the Clauses of

Section 2(f) of the Act.

Shri Akshay Sharma submitted that the appellant has an

alternative remedy against the order of suspension under Rule 22

of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1958’) and Section 4(A) of

the Act of 1976 bars entertainment of any appeal without first

exhausting the alternative remedy. He submitted that on this

count also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

(3 of 17)

[CW-13021/2021]

Learned counsel submitted that contention of the appellant

that the order of suspension dated 04.10.2021 passed by the

District Collector was without jurisdiction as her appointing

authority happens to be BOR, is not tenable in view of its

ratification by the BOR vide its order dated even. He submitted

that their Lordships have held in case of National Institute of

Technology and Ors. Vs. Pannalal Choudhary and Ors.: AIR

2015 SCC 2846 that once an order of an incompetent authority is

ratified by the competent authority, the invalidity attached with

the order goes.

He submitted that despite entering into a caveat, neither

name of the learned counsel for the petitioners was reflected in

the cause list dated 26.10.2021 nor, a