High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 RAJ CK 0021

Kanahiya Lal vs State of Raj. and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 29 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Rastogi, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No''s. 12276, 12277, 12278 and 12279 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 324 words

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent Under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex parte order dt.15.12.09.

2.

The petitioner is working as Enforcement Officer, however in regard to the proceedings which were initiated against a fair price shop dealer regarding certain alleged irregularities the matter travelled upto Additional Food Commissioner, Public Supply and Consumer Department, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur u/s 22-A of the Essential Commidities Act, 1976 filed at the behest of fair price shop dealer. The authority while deciding revision petition observed that the petitioner who was the then Inspector may be chargesheeted for gross irregularity being committed and apart from it disciplinary/criminal action may also be initiated against him.

3.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the authority under the order impugned initiating departmental/judicial action against the petitioner is uncalled for and has been recorded without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4.

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the finding which has been recorded by the authority is not final and will be looked into while disciplinary/judicial action being taken.

5.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to clarify the ex parte order dt.15.12.09 that department is free to examine the records and may frame its own independent opinion while initiating any departmental or judicial action against the petitioner but will not take decision merely on the basis of finding being recorded by the revisional authority under the order impugned dt.16.7.09.

6.

With these clarification/modification, the application Under Article 226(3) of the Constitution in all these four writ petitions stand disposed of.

7.

After the order being recorded, both the counsel jointly submit that the writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order referred to supra.

8.

Accordingly, in terms of the order referred to supra, these writ petitions also stand disposed of.