Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48882 (RAJ)

VEERAM DEV ASSTT. SUB-INSPECTOR SON OF SH. JAWAHAR LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/19011/2025 · 2025-12-05

Ashok Kumar Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:49649] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19011/2025 Veeram Dev Asstt. Sub-Inspector Son Of Sh. Jawahar Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Aadrsh Ram Nagar, Tehsil And District - Bundi, Present Working As A.s.i. Police Line - Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary (Home), Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. D.g.p, Rajasthan Police, Phq, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 05/12/2025 1. The controversy in the writ petition is denial of grant of ACP on ground of censure recorded in year 2017. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20358/2018 submits that penalty of censure does not come in the way while consideration of candidature for grant of ACP to the petitioner by the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:49649] (2 of 2) [CW-19011/2025] 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned AAG candidly admits, if the case of present petitioner is squarely covered with judgment in case of Raghuveer Singh Vs. State (supra) then he has no objection in case, a direction is given for consideation of case of petitioner based on ratio in said judgment to consider grant of ACP to the petitioner. 4. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, and also on perusal of judgment in case of Raghuveer Singh Vs. State (supra), the respondents are directed to consider case of grant of ACP to the petitioner in light of judgment as referred hereinabove, if applicable upon the facts of the case. Needless to say that compliance has to be made within 60 days from date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. With aforesaid, the instant writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /117