Dev Kishan Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Dev Kishan Joshi vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 21, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758263

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758263
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.J. Shethna, J.
Decided On: Nov 21, 2000
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 4081 of 1998
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - Sections 63(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dev Kishan Joshi

Advocate J.P. Joshi, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Advocate R.P. Vyas, Addl. Adv. General and; D.S. Rajvi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - Sections 63(3)
Reported In: 2001(1)WLC659

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....(4). though the respondents were duly served, no reply has been filed in the matter so far. by virtue of interim order passed by this court on 24.11.1998, the peiitioner was reinstated in the office of sarpanch and his term has also over. thus, the order of suspension looses all its significance. (5). the only question remains regarding re-enquiry on the basis of section 63(3)of the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959 (for short 'the act'). it was submitted by the learned counsel shri joshi for the petitioner that on the receipt of the report of enquiry officer the state govt. was bound to pass orders in conformity with the findings recorded by the judicial officer. he, therefore, submitted that second enquiry in the matter was not permissible on any ground. he submitted that in any case, it was not open to the state govt. to order re-enquiry in the matter on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the judicial officer in his enquiry report without supplying the copy of the said enquiry report to the petitioner. however, learned add). advocate general shri vyas for the respondents vehemently submitted that the state govt. had to act on the finding recorded by the judicial officer in his enquiry report, but if the judicial officer fails to record any finding in his enquiry reporl then the state govt. is competent to order re-enquiry, (6). there is lot of substance in the submission made by the learned addl. advocate general that without recording any reason or finding if the judicial officer in his enquiry report exonerate the person then it is not possible for the state govt. to act mechanically on such report. under the circumstances, the state govt. would be competent to order re-enquiry but that has to he done only after serving a copy of the said enquiry report submitted by the judicial officer in favour of the petitioner and giving an opportunity to show cause as to why re-enquiry should not be ordered. (7). in view of the above, learned addl......

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shethna, J.

(1). By way of this wtit petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 15.5.98 (Annex. P/3) and order dated 25.8.1998 (Annex. P/4) ordering re-enquiry against the petitioner.

(2). Earlier writ petition No. 1821/98 filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this fresh petition.

(3). On 24.11.1993 my learned brother Hon'ble R.R. Yadav, J. while issuing notice stayed the impugned order of suspension and order of re-enquiry.

(4). Though the respondents were duly served, no reply has been filed in the matter so far. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 24.11.1998, the peiitioner was reinstated in the office of Sarpanch and his term has also over. Thus, the order of suspension looses all its significance.

(5). The only question remains regarding re-enquiry on the basis of Section 63(3)of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). It was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner that on the receipt of the report of enquiry officer the State Govt. was bound to pass orders in conformity with the findings recorded by the judicial officer. He, therefore, submitted that second enquiry in the matter was not permissible on any ground. He submitted that in any case, it was not open to the State Govt. to order re-enquiry in the matter on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the judicial officer in his enquiry report without supplying the copy of the said enquiry report to the petitioner. However, learned Add). Advocate General Shri Vyas for the respondents vehemently submitted that the State Govt. had to act on the finding recorded by the judicial officer in his enquiry report, but if the judicial officer fails to record any finding in his enquiry reporl then the State Govt. is competent to order re-enquiry,

(6). There is lot of substance in the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General that without recording any reason or finding if the judicial officer in his enquiry report exonerate the person then it is not possible for the State Govt. to act mechanically on such report. Under the circumstances, the State Govt. would be competent to order re-enquiry but that has to he done only after serving a copy of the said enquiry report submitted by the judicial officer in favour of the petitioner and giving an opportunity to show cause as to why re-enquiry should not be ordered.

(7). In view of the above, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Vyas submitted that petitioner will be served with the show cause notice alongwith the report of judicial officer before ordering re-enquiry in the matter.

(8). In view of the above, the impugned order at Annex. P/3 dated 15.5.1998 and Annex. P/4 dated 25.8,1998 are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent Stale Govt. to proceed against the petitioner by way of re-enquiry only after extending an opportunity of hearing and supplying the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the judicial officer in earlier enquiry.

(9). Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2000 Same Parties Dev Kishan Joshi vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge B.J. Shethna, J. Acts & Sections Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - Sections 63(3)

Service