Pushkar Raj Ameta vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8226 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7556/2018

Pushkar Raj Ameta S/o Shri Inder Lal Ameta, R/o 13, New Ashok Vihar, Khara Kuwa, Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel K-3/complaints Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel K-

3/complaints Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel K-

3/complaints Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr.Utkarsh Singh



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                   Judgment

25/03/2021

1. Though the matter has come up on consideration of the

second stay application, but having regard to the fact that the

petitioner, a Mining Engineer has been facing rather suffering

suspension since 17.9.2015, instead of passing any order on the

stay application, this Court deemed it appropriate to decide the

writ petition itself. Hence, with the consent of both the counsel the

writ petition itself is being decided finally.

(2 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 7.5.2018 (Annex.7) so also raised

grievance against the order dated 17.9.2015 (Annex.1), whereby

he had been placed under suspension while invoking provisions of

Rule 13(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

CCA Rules').

3. The facts appertain are that the petitioner, who was working

as Mining Engineer was suspended on 17.9.2015. The sole reason

given in the order was, that the petitioner was found involved in

the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and was

apprehended on 16.9.2015.

4. The petitioner gave a host of representations for revocation

of his suspension, but the same went unheeded for which he filed

a writ petition (SBCWP No.5606/2017), which was disposed of by

a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.2.2018, with a direction to

the petitioner to submit a representation and a corresponding

direction to the respondents to consider the same.

5. Petitioner's representation filed in furtherance of the order

aforesaid came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated

7.5.2018. While rejecting petitioner's request for revocation of

suspension, the competent authority in the State Government

opined that challan against the petitioner has been filed and the

case is pending consideration before the competent Court and

revocation of suspension would be contrary to the State's policy to

handle corrupt public servants and those with criminal

antecedents, with iron hands.

6. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

argued that petitioner has been placed under suspension in

(3 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

September, 2015 and the same is still continuing for no good

reason. He argued that neither the charges have been framed

against the petitioner in the pending criminal case nor has the

department initiated any disciplinary proceedings against him so

far. It was argued that prolonged suspension of the petitioner in

the facts of the present case is not only arbitrary but also violative

of petitioner's fundamental rights.

7. Challenging the order impugned dated 7.5.2018, learned

counsel submitted that the reasons given by the competent

authority while rejecting petitioner's representation, are not

germane and the considerations which have been taken into

account are not relevant for the purpose of taking a decision on

request of revocation of suspension of a Government servant. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment dated 9.12.2016 rendered in the case of Jodha Ram

Vishnoi Vs. JVVNL & Ors. (SBCWP No.7520/2016).

8. It was also pointed out by Mr. Mathur that during the

pendency of the petition, the review committee constituted for

considering the cases for revocation of suspension of public

servants in its meeting held on 18.01.2019 had recommended

revocation of petitioner's suspension alongwith eleven other

officers, however, the State Government has taken a decision

contrary to the recommendation so made by the committee and

consequently, petitioner is suffering suspension while other

officers roped in alognwith the petitioner have been reinstated.

9. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-State argued that there are serious allegations of

bribery against the petitioner and a case relating to Prevention of

Corruption Act is pending against him. Hence, petitioner's

(4 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

reinstatement is not in the interest of administration, contended

Mr. Singh.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that

petitioner's continued suspension since 17.9.2015 is illegal and

violative of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Concededly,

the petitioner was placed under suspension not under sub-rule (2)

of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, but while invoking provisions of Rule

13(1)(b) of the CCA Rules. Rule 13(1) of the CCA Rules, reads

thus:

"13. Suspension.- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension.

(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial:

Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made."

11. In the opinion of this Court, the object or purpose of placing

a Government servant under suspension under Rule 13(1)(b) of

the CCA Rules is, to ensure that a Government servant against

whom a criminal case has been lodged or is under investigation, is

kept away from the official record. Suspension is all the more

imperative, when a Government servant has been found

immersed in corrupt practice or a case under the provisions of

Prevention of Corruption Act is pending against him. Suspension

in such situation is warranted so that he does not have access to

(5 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

the record, which might be used against him during the trial.

Though the word 'trial' has also been used under clause (b) of

Rule 13(1) of the CCA Rules, however, keeping a Government

servant under suspension till pendency of trial is of hardly any use

inasmuch as trial may take sufficient time. After filing of the

charge-sheet in a given case, the State may keep an incumbent

suspended if there is an apprehension of influencing witnesses. In

normal circumstances, once charge-sheet has been filed, the

suspension should be reviewed by the respondents.

12. The petitioner was placed under suspension under clause (b)

of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules and thereafter, no

disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Given the fact that

the State has not chosen to initiate any disciplinary proceedings

against him, this Court finds no legit reason for which respondents

should cling to petitioner's suspension.

13. A perusal of the impugned order whereby petitioner's

representation has been rejected, reveals that the competent

authority has turned down petitioner's request solely on the basis

of purported seriousness of the allegation against him.

14. Indisputably, a period of more than 5 years has since

passed. A person placed under suspension under clause (b) of

sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules cannot be kept

suspended till indefinite period.

15. It is noteworthy that by way of the circular dated 7.7.2010

even the State has decided to review the cases of the employees

after 3 years of suspension by a committee constituted for this

purpose. The committee should decide the case of a Government

servant objectively and should not be swayed by the fact that any

(6 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act or under

any other offence is pending against the Government servant.

16. It is a telling fact that one Ashok Singhvi (IAS) who was also

implicated by the Anti Corruption Bureau alongwith the petitioner

has been reinstated vide order dated 4.8.2017. The petitioner has

been representing that his case is not different from that of Ashok

Singhvi, but the respondents have turned a blind eye towards

petitioner's grievance. No reason has come forward to meet with

the argument of hostile discrimination made out by the petitioner.

17. In his earlier writ petition (SBCWP No.5606/2017) the

petitioner had invited Court's attention towards such fact, however

weening that the State would give similar treatment to the

petitioner also, he withdrew his writ petition, least realising that

the State would be rejecting, when his case for revocation of

suspension comes before it.

18. Alongwith second stay application, petitioner has placed on

record copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 11.10.2018 and

18.1.2019 of the committee for review of suspension. It is

relevant to note that said committee in its meeting held on

18.1.2019 recommended that petitioner be reinstated, but Hon'ble

the Chief Minister did not approve such proposal and resultantly

petitioner's agony continues.

19. It is pertinent that the committee in its meeting dated

18.1.2019 had recommended cases of 5 employees for

reinstatement including the petitioner while rejecting cases of 7

Government servants. Out of those five cases, Hon'ble the Chief

Minister accorded approval to four cases only (officers at

S.No.4,10,11 & 12). No reason has been given for which,

(7 of 7) [CW-7556/2018]

committee's recommendation in relation to the petitioner was not

approved.

20. It is apparent on the face of record that petitioner's case did

not find favour with the State Government. No reason worth the

name has been shown-petitioner has been discriminated.

21. Long drawn suspension of a Government servant is to

nobody's advantage; particularly when, the State itself has not

initiated disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent.

22. Suspension can neither be a substitute of punishment nor

can it be used as a scare crow. The State cannot make an officer

a scapegoat, as appears to have been done, in the present set of

facts.

23. In view of the discussion foregoing and following the

judgment of this Court in the case of Jodha Ram (supra), the writ

petition succeeds. Impugned order dated 7.5.2018 is hereby

quashed.

24. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner

forthwith, but in no case later than 15 days from today.

25. All interlocutory applications and stay applications stand

disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

93-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)