VINOD ASWANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in this matter in writ jurisdiction at this stage. Put in a nutshell, it appears that certain irregularities in NAREGA works have been imputed on the petitioner, working on the post of Gram Sewak -cum -Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Vallabhnagar; and, therefore, the inquiry proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958') are in contemplation. By the order dated 28.02.2012 (Annex.7), while referring to the background aspects and while exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur has put the petitioner under suspension. It is also noticed that a notice was earlier issued to 3 persons including the petitioner on 14.02.2012 (Annex.3) stating, inter alia, that an amount of Rs. 2,12,426/ - was recoverable from the petitioner; and he was called upon to submit his reply. It has not been shown if any final recovery order has been issued against the petitioner.

(2.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the order dated 28.02.2012 (Annex.7) and the notice dated 14.02.2012 (Annex.3). So far the inquiry proceedings under Rule 16 are concerned, as and when the same are taken up, the petitioner would, obviously, be entitled to make the submissions before the authorities concerned. So far the suspension order per Rule 13 is concerned, apparent it is that the said order is appealable per Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioner is, of course, free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in regard to the order of suspension in accordance with law. So far the notice dated 14.02.2012 is concerned, when no final order affecting recovery from the petitioner having been placed on record, the contentions in that regard could only be said to be premature. In view of the above and with the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.