Rajasthan High Court
Sandeep Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14206/2021
Sandeep Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Suresh Chand Sharma,
Aged About 47 Years, R/o H.No. 619, Budhwar Street, Adarsh
Colony, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner, Working As Inspector,
Rajasthan Police Police Station -Sadar, District- Bundi Under
Suspension Headquarter At Reserve Police Line, Kota (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. D.G.P. Rajasthan Police, Lal Kothi, PHQ, Jaipur.
3. I.G.P. Kota Range, Rajasthan Police, Kota.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. S. Raghav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
17/12/2021
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the suspension order dated 14.10.2021 with a further
direction to the respondents to relieve him in pursuance of office
order dated 03.11.2021.
When confronted with maintainability of the writ petition in
view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 22
of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1958 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1958"), learned counsel,
relying upon a judgment dated 13.12.1982 passed by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in case of Rajeshwar Sayanna Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., submitted that since he has been placed
under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 without
(2 of 3) [CW-14206/2021]
affording any opportunity of hearing, this Court can exercise the
writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy to him.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 nowhere provides for
opportunity of hearing to a delinquent before he can be placed
under suspension. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case
of Hem Raj Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2003(4)
WLC (Raj.) 32, held as under:
"25. It may be stated there that in cases of
passing suspension order, principles of natural
justice are not applicable and therefore, if before
passing the impugned suspension order Annex.
3, the petitioner was not given any notice or
opportunity of hearing, that impugned
suspension order Annex. 3 does not become
invalid on that ground as he would get chance in
the disciplinary proceedings and thus, such
order would not be termed as unfair,
unreasonable, unjust or arbitrary"
Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ram
Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 112
held as under:
"28. It may be stated there that in cases of
passing suspension order principles of natural
justice are not applicable and therefore, it before
passing the impugned suspension order Annex.
13, the petitioner was not given any notice or
opportunity of hearing, that impugned
suspension order Annex. 13 does not become
invalid on that ground as she would get chance
in the disciplinary proceedings."
Since, there has been no violation of the principles of natural
justice, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition in
view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under
Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958.
(3 of 3) [CW-14206/2021]
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Surendra
Kumar Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.430/2021 held as under:
"10. Rules 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 provide a forum of
preferring an appeal against the order of
suspension and against the order passed in
departmental enquiry. Since the petitioner has not
availed the statutory remedy of filing of an appeal
against the order of suspension, the present writ
petition seeking quashing of suspension order
dated 07/01/2021 is dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy under the Rules."
A Division Bench of this Court in case of Bhanwar Lal
Nagar & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No.107/2020 held as under:
"7.We find no illegality in the findings of the
learned Single Judge that the appellants have
alternative remedy to challenge their suspension
by way of appeal under Rule 22 of the CCA
Rules. Appeal against the order of suspension
may be filed before the Authority empowered to
entertain such an appeal in the given facts of the
case."
In view of the aforesaid dictum by this Court, the judgment
by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajeshwar
Sayanna (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain this
writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/88
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
