Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10648 (RAJ)

RAMESHWAR PARSAD YADAV v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

CW/245/2009 · 2025-05-08

Anand Sharma V J

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:19349] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 245/2009 Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Son of Shri Dulli Ram Yadav, aged about 61 years, resident of Neem Colony Ward No. 37, Jatav Basti Hindaun City, Karoli Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Municipal Board, Hindaun City, Hindaun through its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nadeem Mazahir, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner Municipal Board Hindaun City, District Karoli (Rajasthan), whereby on account of being convicted in criminal case vide judgment dated 07.12.2007 for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the petitioner, he has been dismissed from the services. 2. Mr. Nadeem Mazahir, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that even D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 47/2008 titled as 'Rameshwar Lal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan' filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:19349] (2 of 2) [CW-245/2009] petitioner against conviction and sentence has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.02.2015 and has informed, even the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed. 3. In view of the above, where on account of conviction in a criminal case power under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been exercised and on account of such conviction, services of the petitioner have been dismissed from the services, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order. 4. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 5. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /116