DEEPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-06. DEEPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37212] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11558/2026 CNR: RJHC010518822026 | URN: CW / 20958U / 2026 Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Sant Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 226, Nagar Palika Quarter, Ward No. 8, Tehsil- Raisinghnagar, District- Sri Ganganagar (Raj. ). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj. ) 2. The Additional Director, Local Self Government Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur (Raj. ) 3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj. ). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 06/08/2026 1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 09. 09. 2025 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed by the Executive Officer of Municipality who is not the competent authority to suspend the petitioner. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the Co-ordinate [2026:RJ-JP:37212] (2 of 2) [CW-11558/2026] Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Veera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ; 2011 WLC 484. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above legal position. 4. In Veera Ram (supra), the Court observed as under:- “6… As per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner could have been placed under suspension by the appointingauthority or by the other authorities as referred under Rule 13, however, none of the authorities have passed the order impugned.
On asking, learned counsel for the respondents specifically denied that any empowerment is there in favour of the Executive Officer to exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 relating to Ministerial Staff. ” 5. In view of the above ratio, order impugned dated 09. 09. 2025 (Annexure-6) having been passed by an incompetent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The present writ petition is hence, allowed. 6. However, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to undertake and complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if any. 7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 74/Ramesh Goyal
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.