Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sudhir Verma vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10740/2021
Sudhir Verma S/o Shri Shiv Ratan Verma, Aged About 31 Years,
Ward No. 23, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Skill, Employment And Emtrepreneurship, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate Of Employment, Darbar School
Campus, Gopinath Marg, Jaipur.
3. District Employment Officer, District Employment Office,
Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/08/2021
(1) Challenging order dated 20.7.2021, Mr. Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has
been placed under suspension merely on the basis of information
supplied by the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as
'the ACB') to the effect that the petitioner has been caught red
handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-.
(2) Inviting Court's attention towards the impugned order,
learned counsel highlighted that the copy of the suspension order
has been endorsed to Superintendent (Admn.) in the office of the
Director General of ACB, which shows that the petitioner has been
placed under suspension under the instructions given by his office.
(2 of 4) [CW-10740/2021]
(3) A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.7.2021 reveals
that it simply talks about information furnished by the ACB. It
does not refer to any instructions of ACB to place the petitioner
under suspension.
(4) In the opinion of this Court, it is the duty of the ACB to
inform the competent authority of the concerned department
about the case lodged against a government servant, particularly
when it comes to a case under Prevention of Corruption Act.
(5) If the competent authority has placed the petitioner under
suspension on the basis of information so received, it cannot be
said that the suspension has taken place on the instructions of
ACB. Endorsing a copy by itself is not even an indication much
less proof that the ACB had given instruction to suspend the
petitioner.
(6) Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel cited following judgments in
support of his contention:
(i) Samrath Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP
No.8249/2007), decided on 30.9.2009
(ii) Om Prakash Yadav Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP
No.8759/2014), decided on 18.12.2015
(iii) Mumtaj Ali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP
No.799/2012), decided on 27.8.2012
(7) Adverting to the judgments rendered in the cases of
Samrath Singh and Om Prakash (supra), the facts stated in the
judgments clearly suggest that the suspension orders therein
referred to circular(s) of the State Government, which provided
that a government servant who has been caught in case of
Prevention of Corruption Act be placed under suspension. Dealing
with the facts involved, this Court held that the competent
(3 of 4) [CW-10740/2021]
authority is required to apply its own mind while placing an
employee under suspension instead of simply relying on the
circular.
(8) So far as the judgment rendered in the case of Mumtaj Ali
(supra) is concerned, a perusal of the facts noted therein shows
that instruction was given by the Director General, ACB to place
the petitioner therein, under suspension. And based on such fact,
this Court had held the suspension to be illegal.
(9) As against the facts of the above cases, the facts in the
present case are entirely different. No instruction has been given
by the ACB. Solely on the basis of endorsement of copy of
suspension order to ACB, it cannot be concluded that the
instructions were given by the ACB to place the petitioner under
suspension and that the suspension is a consequence of such
instructions.
(10) So far as the petitioner's contention that the respondents
have erred in placing the petitioner under suspension from
retrospective date is concerned, the same has some substance.
(11) Dealing with identical situation, when order of suspension
was retrospective in nature, in the case of Chhagan Meghwal Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.929/2001) on 18.2.2021,
this Court has ordered as infra:-
"10. Mr. Kotwani's contention that petitioner cannot be
placed under suspension retrospectively, is duly supported
by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of
Samrath Singh(supra).
11. The petition is, therefore, entertained to this extent.
12. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also,
returnable within six weeks.
13. But then, apparently, illegality lies in retrospectivity of
the suspension. For this irregularity of giving effect to the
suspension from a date anterior to the order, the suspension
per-se cannot be stayed and rigours of Rule 13(2) cannot be
given a go bye. Hence, effect and operation of the impugned
order dated 25.11.2020, to the extent it has been made
(4 of 4) [CW-10740/2021]
retrospective, is stayed in the meantime. In other words, the
petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension w.e.f. 25.11.2020, subject to final outcome of
the writ petition."
(12) Following the above order dated 18.2.2021, the petitioner
shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f.
20.7.2021 subject to final outcome of the present writ petition.
(13) Issue notice to the extent of retrospectivity of suspension.
Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable within six
weeks.
(14) Meanwhile, the suspension of the petitioner from the period
23.6.2021 to 19.7.2021 shall remain stayed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
77-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
