Rajasthan High Court
Shri Chandershekhar Chaubisa vs State Of Raj And Ors on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1984/2018
Shri Chandershekhar Chaubisa S/o Shri Ghanshayam Lal By
Caste Brahmin, R/o Village And Post Madar, Police Station
Ambamata District Udaipur Raj. At Present Posted As Head
Constable No.1123 Suspended At Reserve Police Line Udaipur
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Additional Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
3. Inspector General Of Police Udaipur, Range Udaipur
4. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
17/08/2021
1. The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7)
Supreme Court Cases, 291 in para No.21 has held as under:-
"21. We, therefore, direct that
the currency of a suspension
order should not extend
beyond three months if within
this period the memorandum
of charges/charge-sheet is not
served on the delinquent
officer/employee; if the
memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is
(2 of 3) [CW-1984/2018]
served, a reasoned order must
be passed for the extension of
the suspension. As in the case
in hand, the Government is
free to transfer the person
concerned to any department
in any of its offices within or
outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal
contact that he may have and
which he may misuse for
obstructing the investigation
against him. The Government
may also prohibit him from
contacting any person, or
handling records and
documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defence.
We think this will adquately
safeguard the universally
recognised principle of human
dignity and the right to a
speedy trial and shall also
preserve the interest of the
Government in the
prosecution. We recognise that
the previous Constitution
Benches have been reluctant
to quash proceedings on the
grounds of delay, and to set
time-limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a
limit on the period of
suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law,
and would not be contrary to
the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of
the Central Vigilance
Commission that pending a
criminal investigation,
departmental proceedings are
to be held in abeyance stands
superseded in view of the
stand adopted by us."
3. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra)
and in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and
(3 of 3) [CW-1984/2018]
proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 60 days
by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance
with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ
petition if need so arises.
4. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition so also the stay petition
stands disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /351
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
