HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1317/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Treasury And
Accounts Department Jaipur.
2. The Treasury Officer, Tonk Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Mohammed Umer Khan S/o Shri Chhaman Khan, Aged About
59 Years, R/o 9-11, Taha Colony, Mohalla, Gole Tonk Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Advocate with Mr. Manish Parihar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment / Order 06/12/2022 Heard.
Learned Additional Advocate General, assailing correctness and validity of order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge argued that the respondent-writ petitioner was subjected to trial for commission of heinous offence which ended up in conviction. Merely because, in appeal the conviction has been stayed in addition to suspension of sentence, the justification for continuous suspension order does not wipe away. He would submit that irrespective of the length of the period of suspension, if a government servant has been convicted for heinous offence, the decision of the authority not to reinstate him as the order of (Downloaded on 09/12/2022 at 12:05:36 AM) (2 of 3) [SAW-1317/2022] conviction has only been stayed but not set aside, cannot be said to be in any manner against the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India and Others, 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291, because in that judgment, as held by the Division Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in the case of Superintending Engineer Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Another Versus Mohan Kumar (WA (MD) No.1827 of 2021), dealt with limited aspect and is not obligatory in all the circumstances and there is no inviolable rule of thumb that under no circumstance, the suspension would continue beyond three months.
After going through the order passed by learned Single Judge, we find that the main operative reason for the learned Single Judge to grant relief in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner has been that the respondent had remained under suspension for almost twenty years. Though a conviction was ordered by the Trial Court against him, on appeal being filed, not only sentence has been suspended but the conviction itself has been stayed. The order of the Appellate Court has to be, therefore, given full effect. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India and Others (supra) strikes at long continuation of suspension.
Even assuming for the argument sake that in appropriate cases, the suspension could be continued beyond three months, we are of the firm view that in the present case, on its own facts, continuance of suspension for almost twenty years cannot be said to be justified. Suspension, as is well settled, cannot be used (Downloaded on 09/12/2022 at 12:05:36 AM) (3 of 3) [SAW-1317/2022] as a cloak for punishment. The suspension had taken long back when the criminal case was registered and the trial was initiated. Much water has flown since then. The order of conviction has been assailed by filing an appeal which is the right of the respondent. The Appellate Court, after scrutiny of the case, had stayed the conviction. Therefore, in such circumstances, there was absolutely no justification for further continuation of suspension. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that further continuation of suspension was not justified in law. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /5 (Downloaded on 09/12/2022 at 12:05:36 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)