Rajasthan High Court
State Of Rajasthan vs Mohammed Umer Khan S/O Shri ... on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1317/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Treasury And
Accounts Department Jaipur.
2. The Treasury Officer, Tonk Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Mohammed Umer Khan S/o Shri Chhaman Khan, Aged About
59 Years, R/o 9-11, Taha Colony, Mohalla, Gole Tonk Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with
Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Advocate with
Mr. Manish Parihar, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment / Order
06/12/2022
Heard.
Learned Additional Advocate General, assailing correctness
and validity of order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Single
Judge argued that the respondent-writ petitioner was subjected
to trial for commission of heinous offence which ended up in
conviction. Merely because, in appeal the conviction has been
stayed in addition to suspension of sentence, the justification for
continuous suspension order does not wipe away. He would
submit that irrespective of the length of the period of suspension,
if a government servant has been convicted for heinous offence,
the decision of the authority not to reinstate him as the order of
(2 of 3) [SAW-1317/2022]
conviction has only been stayed but not set aside, cannot be said
to be in any manner against the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of
India and Others, 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291,
because in that judgment, as held by the Division Bench of
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in the case of
Superintending Engineer Tamilnadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited and Another Versus
Mohan Kumar (WA (MD) No.1827 of 2021), dealt with
limited aspect and is not obligatory in all the circumstances and
there is no inviolable rule of thumb that under no circumstance,
the suspension would continue beyond three months.
After going through the order passed by learned Single
Judge, we find that the main operative reason for the learned
Single Judge to grant relief in favour of the respondent-writ
petitioner has been that the respondent had remained under
suspension for almost twenty years. Though a conviction was
ordered by the Trial Court against him, on appeal being filed, not
only sentence has been suspended but the conviction itself has
been stayed. The order of the Appellate Court has to be,
therefore, given full effect. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of
India and Others (supra) strikes at long continuation of
suspension.
Even assuming for the argument sake that in appropriate
cases, the suspension could be continued beyond three months,
we are of the firm view that in the present case, on its own facts,
continuance of suspension for almost twenty years cannot be
said to be justified. Suspension, as is well settled, cannot be used
(3 of 3) [SAW-1317/2022]
as a cloak for punishment. The suspension had taken long back
when the criminal case was registered and the trial was initiated.
Much water has flown since then. The order of conviction has
been assailed by filing an appeal which is the right of the
respondent. The Appellate Court, after scrutiny of the case, had
stayed the conviction. Therefore, in such circumstances, there
was absolutely no justification for further continuation of
suspension. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was
fully justified in holding that further continuation of suspension
was not justified in law. In view of the above, we are not inclined
to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Mohita /5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
