Rajkamal Meena S/O Ramphool Meena vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5494 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10498/2022

Rajkamal Meena S/o Ramphool Meena, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Vill. Khandepura P.s. Mandrayal Distt. Karauli (Raj.). Then
Posted As Assistant Agriculture Officer Office At Deputy Director
Horticulture   Baran        Distt.     Baran       Raj.      At      Present      During
Suspension     Period      Posted       Headquarters               Assistant     Director
Agriculture (V) Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.     State    Of      Rajasthan,          Through          Principal         Secretary,
       Department Of Horticulture (Agriculture), Secretariat,
       Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The     Joint       Director         Horticulture             (Administration),
       Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     The          Commissioner               Horticulture             (Agriculture),
       Commissionerate, Pant Krashi Bhawan Jaipur (Raj.).
4.     The Joint Director Horticulture, Kota (Raj.).
5.     The Deputy Director Horticulture, Baran (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

04/08/2022

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

(2 of 3) [CW-10498/2022]

this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is 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 of 3) [CW-10498/2022]

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

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 is disposed of. The stay

application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/168

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)