Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013

8/12/2019 Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013

1/31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____/2013

Parag Agarwal

Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan & Others.

Respondents.

I N D E X

S.No. Pa!"#$%a& Pa'( No.

1 Writ Petition

2 Affidavit in spport of writpetition

! Sta" appli#ation$ Affidavit in spport of sta"

appli#ation%o#ents

Anne're(1)op" of the Sspension letterdated !.*.11

Anne're(2)op" of +eorand dt. 1,.*.11Anne're(!)op" of the order dated -.1.12

Anne're($)op" of the appeal dated 2,.11.12Anne're(,)op" of order dated 21.1.1!, Affidavit in spport of do#ents

/aipr%ated

)onsel for Petitioner



2/31



Parag Agarwal

Petitioner

VERSUS


Respondents.

B"() S*+o,&"&

0en#e this writ petition.

)onsel for petitioner



3/31



Parag ar Agarwal aged a3ot "ears resident of

/aipr.

Petitioner

VERSUS

Respondents

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22- OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE ATTER OF ARTICLE 1 1- OF CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA

4o

4he 0on53le )hief /sti#e and

his 6ordship5s #opanion /dges of the

0igh )ort of /di#atre for

Rajasthan at /aipr 7en#h /aipr.

A IT PLEASE OUR LORDSHIPS

4he h3le petitioner a3ove naed ost

respe#tfll" 3egs to s3it as nder8

1.4hat the petitioner is the #iti9en of :ndia hen#e

are well #opetent to invo;e the e'traordinar"

jrisdi#tion of this 0on53le )ort nder Arti#le 22-


4/31

of the )onstittion of :ndia 3" wa" of filing this

writ petition.

2.4hat the petitioner was initiall" appointed in the

7an; of +aharashtra


5/31

not wanted the petitioner to 3e wor;ing at /aipr

7ran#h and altogether #opiling against the

petitioner ipli#ated hi in the present #harges

relating to the e3e99leent of Rs. ! la#s. 4he

petitioner was sspended vide order dated !.*.11

when he was posted in /aipr at +.:.Road 7ran#h

/aipr. :t a" 3e pointed ot that the alleged

e3e99leent too; pla#e on 1.2.21 when

petitioner was %".+anager of the +.:.Road 7ran#h of

the respondent 3an;. :t is alleged that on 1.2.21

petitioner opened three fa;e insta #ard savings 3an;

a##onts with sole intention of #oitting frad.

4he said fa;e a##onts were opened 3" the petitioner

withot naes of the a##ont holders and withot

initial #ash deposit. :t was frther alleged that

petitioner issed hiself and ta;e three insta #ards

of these fa;e a##onts. Petitioner sed these #ards

for withdrawing aont #redited 3" hi fradlentl"

in these fa;e a##onts and for a;ing pr#hases

throgh fradlentl" #redit aont in the fa;e

a##onts. 4he ain allegation was that petitioner

fradlentl" transferred aont fro overde

deposits 3elonging to the different 3enefi#iaries to

the fa;e a##onts opened 3" the petitioner and he

fradlentl" withdrawn an aont of Rs. - la#s fro

the fa;e S7 a##ont ?o. -@*$*21 and destro"ed

the said withdrawal slip frtherore on [email protected]

Rs. ! la#s were transferred fro the fa;e S7

a##ont to one #rrent a##ont 4ep. par;ing a##ont


6/31

?o. --$2*$- and on the sae da" he too; #ash

pa"ent of Rs. ! la#s hiself 3" preparing a de3it

vo#her for prported #ash reittan#e to /hotwara

7ran#h whereas it is alleged that there was no

re>isition for #ash reittan#e fro /hotwara 7ran#h

on that da" for #oitting these a#ts of frad he

issed ser :% password of other eplo"ee of the

3ran#h and 3" aforesaid a#ts it is alleged that he

#ased loss of Rs. !-@2$!B( to the 3an;.

$.4hat on 2.*.11 it was dis#overed 3" the 3an;

athorities that a s of Rs.- la#s appro'. is

issing so it was en>ired < after 1@ onths=

wherein all the eplo"ees of the 3an; were en>ired

and vide order dated !.*.11 five eplo"ees were

sspended. :t is pertinent to ention here that ot

of aforeentioned five sspended eplo"ees onl"

petitioner was later on ipli#ated in the #harges

and s3se>entl" terinated fro the servi#e. )op"

of the sspension letter dated !.*.11 is 3eing

pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(41.

,.4hat it was dis#overed a3ot the e3e99led one"C

onl" after the withdrawal of the aont of the

e3e99led one" i.e. Rs. ! la#s that is on [email protected]

to 2.*.11 i.e. for seven da"s s#h one" was not in

the 3an; neither was deposited at the /hotwara

7ran#h and adittedl" no reittan#e of #ash

re>ireent was soght 3" the /hotwara 7ran#h 3t

to the reasons 3est ;nown to the respondent 3an;

e3e99leent of s#h hge aont reained


7/31

ndis#overed for a wee;. 7e as it a" petitioner who

was the jnior ost offi#er in the 3ran#h at that

tie was aong the five sspended eplo"ees and was

pressri9ed 3" all the other eplo"ees of the 3an;

as well as 3" the Union 6eaders and he was for#ed

and inflen#ed 3" the other delin>ent sspended

eplo"ees to adit the #harges that he has ade the

aforesaid e3e99leent oreover the earlier

e3e99leent ade on 1.2.21 of opening three fa;e

insta( a##onts was also #l33ed with aforeentioned

e3e99leent of Rs. ! la# and petitioner was for#ed

to a##ept that 3oth the e3e99leent of Rs. - la#s

as well as of ! la#s were done 3" the petitioner

alone. Petitioner nder the pressre and #oer#ion

wrote two #onfession letters whi#h were s#ripted 3"

the 3an; athorities onl" and aditted all the

#harges leveled against hi in those #onfession

letters nder the nde inflen#e of the sperior

offi#ers.

-.4hat on the following dates as Rs. ! la#s were

alread" 3een deposited with the 3an; 3" soe n;nown

sor#e and Rs. - la#s were still issing all the

five sspended eplo"ees #ontri3ted and deposited

the residal aont of Rs. - la#s to the 3an;

wherein the petitioners5 share #ae to 3e of Rs.

@-@B( whi#h were withdrawn 3" the petitioner fro

his salar" a##ont. :t is pertinent to ention here

that on -.*.11 all the aforesaid transa#tions were

ade and on the sae ver" da" petitioner was again


8/31

for#ed to write a #onfession letter nder the nde

inflen#e of the sperior offi#ers as well as the

nion leaders of the respondent 3an; wherein

petitioner aditted all the #harges leveled against

hi and also stated that no other 3an; eplo"ee is

involved in the aforesaid e3e99leent. :t wold 3e

ne#essar" to point ot at this pla#e that

#ontri3tion ade 3" the other eplo"ees ot rightl"

proves the fa#t that the" were ver" #h into the

whole #ootion of e3e99leent and jst #over p

their isdeeds the" first tried to settle the atter

3" depositing the one" 3a#; 3t when it was not

appeared to settle down petitioner was ade a

s#apegoat and the whole 3lae was pit#hed pon

petitioner5s head.

.4hat in prsan#e to the a3ove stated #onfession

letter a #harge sheet was spplied to the

petitioner 3" the 3an; as well as #riinal #ase was

also registered against the petitioner onl" a;ing

the sole 3ase of the #onfession petitioner was

provided a eorand of #harges on 1,.*.11 and all

other sspended eplo"ees were e'onerated vide order

dated 1*.2.11. 4he #op" of the eorand of the

#harges dated 1,.*.11 is pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed

asA++($(42.

@.4hat the aforeentioned eorand of #harges was

re#eived 3" the petitioner on 21.*.11 and in

prsan#e of the aforeentioned eorand

petitioner soght 1, da"s e'tension for filing the


9/31

repl". :t is h3l" s3itted that s#h letter of

petitioner for e'tension of tie was not e'pedited

and petitioner was not granted an" e'tension in tie

to file repl" vide order dated $.1.11.

:t is pertinent to ention here that petitioner

s3itted a written stateent dated 1*.1.11

e'plaining all the instan#e in detail and e'plaining

that he was ade a s#apegoat in the aforeentioned

instan#e whereas he was a#tall" inno#ent and was

not aware of an" soght of is#ond#t and all the

allegations are false and that petitioner was

wrongl" ipli#ated and has 3een sed 3" the other

3an; eplo"ees in the aforeentioned instan#e as a

s#apegoat. :t is frtherore s3itted that there is

no iota of eviden#e against the petitioner and there

was not even a single do#ent showing the

involveent of petitioner in the alleged #harges.

4he whole #hargesheet was 3ased on the a3ove stated

#onfession onl" apart fro that there are no

allegations against petitioner.

*. 4hat thereafter a dis#iplinar" pro#eeding was

started against petitioner 3ased pon the aforeentioned

#hargesheet. S#h %epartental en>ir" was ere foralit"

and the no fair trial was provided to the petitioner.

1. 4hat dring the en>ir" pro#eedings petitioner was

never provided an" defen#e representation nor was he

provided an" ne#essar" do#ents even pon n n3er of

re>ests ade 3" hi. +oreover a hast" en>ir" was ade


10/31

wherein the en>ir" athorit" never #onsidered an"

s3ission ade 3" the petitioner and onl" on the 3asis

of the #onfession ade 3" the petitioner held petitioner

gilt" of all the #harges leveled against hi and

#onse>entl" pnished with reoval fro servi#e. )op" of

the letter as;ing for the do#ents as well as the

defen#e representative are pla#ed on re#ord and are

ar;ed asA++($(43.

11. 4hat En>ir" Offi#er disissed the #ontention of

the petitioner withot appl"ing ind and onl" on the

grond that the petitioner ade #onfessions on two

o##asions and held petitioner gilt" of the e3e99leent

of Rs.!- la#s appro'. and proposed a pnishent of

reoval fro servi#e whereas the trth is entirel"

different as the petitioner was anaging the provident

fnd departent the opening of new insta #ard a##onts

and issing insta #ards in his own favors that too on

fa;e identit" and password of other eplo"ees were wa"

ot his a3it therefore was ipossi3le. :t was never

nder the athorit" of the petitioner he was not a

#opetent athorit" to open an a##ont on his own withot

an" frther athori9ation fro senior offi#ers and

oreover opening s#h a##onts was never nder his wor;

a3it and a##ordingl" no eviden#e are there on re#ord

against petitioner. :t is frtherore s3itted that

petitioner soght perission of the en>ir" offi#er to

prod#e the #larifi#ation letters written 3" the other

delin>ent eplo"ees to the higher athorities on re#ord

3t s#h re>est was trned down 3" the en>ir" offi#er.


11/31

:t s3itted that other delin>ent eplo"ees

nael"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD have stated in their

letters that the" were well versed with the whole

transa#tion of reittan#e of one" to /hotwara 7ran#h and

the" vide proper pro#edre and athori9ation passed s#h

reittan#e. :t a;es it #r"stal #lear that petitioner was

alafide ipli#ated in the whole fias#o 3" s#h real

#lprits.

:t is frtherore s3itted that as far as the

>estion of e3e99leent of ! la#s is #on#erned

there are no eviden#e against petitioner apart fro

the adission of the #harges ade 3" hi and that

#ertainl" 3" ere persal of the fa#ts it #an 3e

ade ot that a jnior offi#erireent of the other

3ran#h withdraw s#h aont 3" sing fa;e identit"

and password of other eplo"ees and ;ept s#h aont

with hi at hoe withot an" prpose and then re(

deposited s#h aont in the 3an; after lapse of a

wee; and 3e as it a" all this was done 3" a single

person and this was never dis#overed 3" the 3an;.

12. 4hat petitioner pro#eeded an appeal to the appellate

athorit" of the 3an; against the order of the

dis#iplinar" athorit" i.e. eneral +anager5s order dated

-.1.12. )op" of the order dated -.1.12 is 3eing pla#ed

on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(45.


12/31

1!. 4hat petitioner in his appeal e'plained how he was

ipli#ated and was for#ed to adit all the #harges.

Petitioner filed a detailed appeal dated 2,.11.12 to the

appellate athorit" s#h appeal was disissed 3" the

appellate athorit" withot #onsidering the #ase of the

petitioner. )op" of the appeal dated 2,.11.12 is 3eing

pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(4-.

1$. 4hat the appellate athorit" also disissed the

appeal withot appl"ing his ind and on the grond that

adission of the #harges was ade 3" the petitioner. vide

order dated 21.1.1! appellate athorit" disissed the

appeal of the petitioner and pheld the reoval order

passed 3" the dis#iplinar" athorit". )op" of order dated

21.1.1! is 3eing pla#ed on re#ord and ar;ed asA++($(4

6.

GROUNDS

A. That the en>ir" #ond#ted 3" the respondent is

wholl" illegal ar3itrar" and njstified

therefore deserves to 3e set aside. :t is

s3itted that petitioner #annot 3e said to

have #oitted an" delin>en#" for whi#h the

respondents have pro#eeded against hi and the

allegations are raised on no eviden#e and

therefore the en>ir" deserves to 3e >ashed

and set aside.


13/31

7. 4hat the entire en>ir" has 3een #on#lded 3"

the investigating offi#er as well as 3" the

appellate athorit" onl" on the 3asis of

adission of #harges ade 3" the delin>ent

eplo"ee i.e. petitioner. :t is s3itted that

there was no dire#t eviden#e against the

petitioner in fa#t there was no eviden#e

against petitioner and onl" on the 3asis of

#onfession the en>ir" has 3een #on#lded it

is well settled law that ere adission of the

#harges is not proved the #harges parse and it

is re>ired to 3e proved with the spport of

eviden#e and there were no eviden#e against the

petitioner s#h a #on#lsion drawn 3" the

appellate athorit" while disissing the appeal

of the petitioner is wholl" illegal and

ar3itrar".

). 4hat dring the %epartental En>ir" petitioner

tie and again re>ested for a defense

representation to present his #ase 3t he was

never provided an" defense representation and

when he soght perission fro the 7an; to

appoint a defense representative for hiself

s#h re>est was denied 3" the 3an;. 4herefore

at last petitioner hiself presented his #ase

dring the departental pro#eedings. :t is

s3itted that a delin>ent eplo"ee dring the

departental pro#eedings posses a legal right

to get its defense representative and s#h has


14/31

3een held 3" the 0on53le Spree )ort in the

#atena of the #ases therefore respondent 3an;

3" not providing defense representation to the

petitioner had done great injsti#e to the

petitioner and therefore on this sole grond

entire en>ir" vitiates.

%. 4hat it is well settled law and it also #oes

nder in natral law that a delin>ent person

who has to prove hiself inno#ent deserves to

get all the re>ired do#ents fro the

departent #on#erned it is s3itted that

petitioner tie and again re>ested the

respondent 3an; to provide hi the ne#essar"

do#ents and also provided a list of ne#essar"

do#ents whi#h were tost ne#essar" to prove

the #ase of the petitioner 3t all the re>est

ade 3" the petitioner went in vain as no

do#ents were provided and in fa#t when

petitioner soght the do#ents 3" filing an

appli#ation nder R4: 2, then also the

#oplete do#ents were not provided 3" the

respondent 3an;. :t is s3itted that s#h

#ond#t of the respondent 3an; ade it

ipossi3le to prove its #ase and to prove

hiself inno#ent and as there was a3(initio

#onspira#" against the petitioner s#h

do#ents were not provided deli3eratel" even

pon written re>est ade tie and again

therefore s#h #ond#t of the respondent 3an;


15/31

vitiates the en>ir" and the order of the

disissal is ar3itrar" illegal and 3ad in law.

E. 4hat the entire en>ir" pro#eedings deserves to

3e >ashed as the sae were essen#e of 3est

de#isional en>ir" pro#eedings #ond#ted with

the sole intention to ipli#ate the petitioner

and the en>ir" pro#eedings were #ond#ted with

the sole prpose to affir pro#eedings alread"

#ond#ted 3" the #on#erned #onspirers. 4he

#harges were fraed in a anner as if loss has

3een #ased and s#h loss has 3een #ased onl"

3" the #ond#t of the petitioner 3t no loss at

all too; pla#e and the alleged e3e99led one"

was deposited 3a#; in the 3an; in "sterios

#ir#stan#es. :t is s3itted that the jo3

profile of the petitioner liits his a3it onl"

pto the s#ope of provident fnd and therefore

he was not at all athori9e to isse withdrawal

vo#hers and as the alligations were ade

against the petitioner that he sed the fa;e

:%s of the other eplo"ee s#h is ipossi3le as

no prdent eplo"ee wold provide his ni>e :%

and password to the other #olleages as 3eing

so ade in danger the jo3 of an" eplo"ee in

the 3an;. :t is oreover s3itted that the

whole transa#tions alleged to have 3een ade

onl" 3" the petitioner 3t 3" ere persal of

s#h allegations it is ver" #lear that s#h

#annot 3e done 3" a single person as petitioner


16/31

was a jnior offi#er and never had the

athorit" to open s#h insta #ard a##onts 3"

hiself and to transfer the fnds fro the

other 3an; a##onts to s#h fa;e insta #ard

a##onts withot getting noti#e to the other

eplo"ees of the 3an; in the aforesaid

transa#tions five eplo"ees of the 3an; were

involved and petitioner was a ere s#ape goat

and all the sspended five eplo"ees e'plain

their respe#tive role in the aforesaid

transa#tion of the e3e99leent vide their

letter written to the Asstt. eneral +anager of

the 3an; in whi#h the" have #learl" stated that

the" had fll ;nowledge of reittan#e of one"

withdrawal of one" and deposition of the one"

3a#; into the 3an; and s#h was done with their

de athori9ation and sense. 4herefore 3" 3are

persal of the written do#ents of the other

eplo"ees it is #r"stal #lear that it was a

whole and whole #onspira#" ade 3" the five

sspended eplo"ees of the 3an; and the

petitioner 3eing the jnior ost was ade s#ape

goat when the whole is(#ond#t was dete#ted

and 3" a;ing nde inflen#e s#h other

inflen#ed people involved in s#h #onspira#"

for#ed petitioner to write a #onfession letter

and the langage of the #onfession letter was

s#h that it a" ipli#ate petitioner onl" and

all others were e'onerated. On this sole grond


17/31

the whole en>ir" pro#eedings vitiates and the

order of disissal of servi#e to the petitioner

is 3ad in law therefore lia3le to 3e set aside.

F. 4hat no independent witness were e'ained and

all the 3an; eplo"ees who were alread"

#onspiring against the petitioner were e'ained

3" the investigating athorit" and then to the

#on#erned witness and the #ross e'aination

#ond#ted 3" the petitioner apl" proves that

the whole pro#eedings was not done 3" the

petitioner and there were other people who have

fll ;nowledge of the e3e99leent and for the

reasons 3est ;nown to the appeased s#h

e3e99leent and allowed Rs. ! la#s to 3e

transferred to s#h nnaed a##ont. 4herefore

this #learl" state that the report of the

investigating offi#er was not 3ased on an"

eviden#e.

. 4hat the investigating athorit" as well as the

appellate athorit" de#ided the #ase of the

petitioner solel" on the 3asis of adission of

#harges ade 3" the petitioner disissed the

appeal of the petitioner. :n the #ase of Roop

Singh ?egi VBs Pnja3 ?ational 7an; 2*asi jdi#ial fn#tion. 4he #harges

leveled against the delin>ent eplo"ee st 3e


18/31

fond to have 3een proved. 4he prported

eviden#e #olle#ted dring investigation 3" the

investigating athorit" against all the a##sed

3" itself #old not 3e treated to 3e eviden#e

in the dis#iplinar" pro#eedings the onl" 3asi#

eviden#e were pon relian#e has 3een pla#ed 3"

the En>ir" Offi#er was the prported

#onfession ade 3" the petitioner and a##ording

to the petitioner he was for#ed to write s#h

#onfession. 4he petitioner 3eing an eplo"ee of

the 3an; and the said #onfession having several

#onse>en#es shold have 3een proved and

sffi#ient eviden#e shold have 3een 3roght on

re#ord to show that he had indlged in the

e3e99leent of one". Adittedl" there was no

dire#t eviden#e 3t the #onfession letter

throgh s#h #onfession 3ased onl" on the

prported #onfession of the petitioner is not

tena3le in the e"es of law.

0. 4hat the order of dis#iplinar" athorit" as

also the appellate athorit" is not spported

3" an" reason and onl" 3ased on the prported

#onfession. 4he aterial 3roght on the re#ord

pointed ot that s#h e3e99leent #old not

have 3een ade 3" a single person therefore the

gilt are re>ired to 3e proved. A de#ision #an

3e arrived at on s#h eviden#e ere #onfession

does not e'plain the reason 3ehind the whole

e3e99leent. 4he interreges drawn 3" the


19/31

En>ir" Offi#er apparentl" were not spported

3" an" eviden#e therefore in a3sen#e of no

legal proof against the petitioner the order of

the appellate athorit" deserves to 3e set

aside.

:. 4hat there has 3een a #oplete non appli#ation

of ind. 4he pnishent iposed is harsh and

severe and dis#riinatel" as sae #harges were

leveled against the five other eplo"ees of the

7an; and the" were also sspended with the sae

order as of the petitioner 3t as petitioner

was ade to #onfess all the other eplo"ees

were e'onerated and ths with o3li>e prpose

and #onstant the petitioner onl" was ade s#ape

goat and no allegations other five eplo"ees

with respe#t to having #ased loss to the 3an;

were ade.

/. 4hat there were two different e3e99leent one was

ade in the "ear 21 and reain n(dete#ted for

alost 1* onths and the other was ade on [email protected]

3" withdrawing Rs. ! la#s and was dete#ted after

si' onths. :t is s3itted that an" prdent person

with sond ind after e3e99leent of s#h a hge

aont wold not #ontine servi#e and wold have

left the pla#e as soon as possi3le oreover there

was a apparent lapse on the part of the respondent

3an; as the" were not a3le to dete#t and

e3e99leent of si' Rs. la#s for 1@ onths

altogether and one ore fa#t whi#h #reates


20/31

sffi#ient do3ts is that the one" was again

deposited in the "sterios #ir#stan#es to the

3an; after seven da"s of its withdrawal no person

wold steel Rs. ! la#s withot an" prpose as the

petitioner was having a proising #arrier and was in

no wa" in need of s#h one". 4he allegation that

petitioner ;ept s#h hge aont of Rs. ! la#s at

his hoe withot an" prpose after steeling it fro

the 3an; sonds falla#ios. Frtherore after

deposition of Rs. ! la#s on the s3se>ent dates of

the investigation was ade and the five delin>ent

eplo"ee #ontri3ted and deposited Rs. - la#s to the

3an; whi#h in itself is a nsal a#t as no #harges

were proved against an" eplo"ee 3" that tie and

the" were onl" sspended 3" deposition of s#h one"

to the 3an; s#h delin>ent eplo"ee aditted their

is#ond#t and petitioner 3eing the jnior ost and

the new person had to parti#ipate withot his will

in the inflen#e of its sperior offi#ers.

4herefore aforesaid fa#tal atri' a;es it #r"stal

#lear that it was a #onspira#" and petitioner was no

gilt" and he was for#ed to sign s#h adission 3"

his sperior athorities.

. 4hat other grond wold 3e rged at the tie of

argents.

1,. 4hat the petitioner has not filed an" s#h siilar

writ petition 3efore this 0on53le )ort or 3efore the

Spree )ort of :ndia.


21/31

PRAER

:t is therefore pra"ed that this 0on53le )ort a"

ver" gra#iosl" 3e pleased to a##ept and allow this

writ petition and8


22/31

tie.

:t has 3een t"ped 3" " own t"pist who is not a

staff e3er of the 0igh )ort.

Pie papers are not readil" availa3le.

)onsel for the petitioner




Parag ar Agarwal

Petitioner


23/31

VERSUS


Respondents

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION

: Parag ar Agarwal son of aged a3ot "ears

/aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(

1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and a

well #onversant with the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the

#ase.

2. 4hat anne'ed writ petition has 3een drafted 3" or

#onsel nder " instr#tions whi#h has 3een read over

and e'plained to e and : have nderstood the sae well.

!. 4hat #ontents of para 1 to 11 are tre and #orre#t to

" personal ;nowledge and gronds A to of the writ

petition are #orre#t to " ;nowledge 3eing 3ased on

offi#ial re#ord of the #ase.

VERIFICATION

: the a3ove naed deponent do here3" verif" that the

#ontents of paras 1 to ! of " a3ove affidavit are tre

and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor an"

part of it is false.

So help e od.


24/31

:dentified 3"8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH JAIPUR


Parag ar Agarwal

Petitioner

VERSUS


25/31


Respondents

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUENTS


/aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(

1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and a

well #onversant with the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the

#ase.

2. 4hat Anne'res 1 to , are the tre and #orre#t

Photostat #opies of their originals.

VER:F:)A4:O?


#ontents of paras 1 and 2 of " a3ove affidavit are tre

and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor an"

part of it is false.

So help e od.


26/31

:dentified 3"8



S. B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION NO.______/2013

Parag ar Agarwal

Petitioner


27/31

VERSUS


Respondents

S.B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE

22- OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

4o

0on53le the )hief /sti#e

And his other #opanion /dges of the

0igh )ort of /di#atre for Rajasthan

At /aipr 7en#h /aipr.

A IT PLEASE OUR LORDSHIPS7

4he h3le petitioner naed a3ove ost respe#tfll"

3egs to s3it as nder8(

1.4hat the petitioners have filed the a3ove titled Writ

Petition 3efore this 0onG3le )ort toda" along with

this Sta" Appli#ation and fro the fa#ts and aterial

on re#ord a strong pria fa#ie #ase is ade ot in

favor of the petitioners and it has ever" hope of

s##ess in it.

2.4hat the averents ade and the gronds raised in

the writ petition a" ;indl" 3e treated to 3e the part

and par#el of the present writ petition in order to

avoid the repetition.

!. 4hat in the fa#ts and #ir#stan#es of the #ase

dring the penden#" of this writ petition the


28/31

respondents are restrained fro giving pon the

eorand dated [email protected].

$. 4hat the 3alan#e of #onvenien#e pria(fa#ie #aseand irrepara3le injr" fa#tors also lie in favor of

h3le petitioners.

:t is therefore pra"ed that this sta" appli#ation

a" ;indl" 3e e'pedited and dring the penden#" of

petition the respondent are restrained fro giving

pon the eorand dated [email protected] 3e sta"ed and the

petitioner a" allowed to #ontine at his present

pla#e of posting.

An" other order or dire#tion whi#h the 0on53le )ort

a" dee jst and proper in the fa#ts and

#ir#stan#es of the #ase a" also ;indl" 3e passed

in favor of the petitioner.

03le petitioner

/aipr

%ated 8

4hrogh )onsel8


29/31

)onsel for the petitioner



S. B. CIVIL ISC. STA APPLICATION NO.______/2013

Parag ar Agarwal


30/31

Petitioner

VERSUS


Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF STA APPLICATION


resident of /aipr do here3" state on oath as nder8(

1. 4hat : a the petitioner in the a3ove #ase and

a well #onversant with the fa#ts and

#ir#stan#es of the #ase.2. 4hat the anne'ed Sta" Appli#ation has 3een

drafted and prepared 3" " #onsel nder "

instr#tions whi#h has 3een read over and

e'plained to e and : have nderstood the sae.

!. 4hat the #ontents of para 1 to , of the Sta"

Appli#ation are tre and #orre#t to " personal

;nowledge and as per legal advi#e given 3" orlearned #onsel.

VERIFICATION


#ontents of para 1 to ! of " a3ove affidavit are tre

and #orre#t. ?othing aterial has 3een #on#ealed nor is

an" part of it false.


31/31

So help e od.

/aipr

%ated8

Documents

Writ Parag Kr. Agarwal 11.3.2013