Rajasthan High Court
Anil Kumar S/O Ramlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 189/2022
Anil Kumar S/o Ramlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill- Bada
Bajidpur, Teh-Kemari, District Karouli Rajasthan At Present
Posted As Head Constable No. 988 (Suspended) Reserve Police
Line Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary (Department Of Home), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Director General Of Police, (Headquarter) Lalkhothi,
Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhiwadi, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Naruka for
Mr. Rupin Kala, GC through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
10/01/2022
Issue notice.
In view of short controversy involved in the matter and
limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court deems it just and proper to direct Mr. P.S. Naruka, learned
counsel to accept notices on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was
placed under suspension vide order dated 08.01.2021, even after
lapse of more than a year thereafter, the same has not been
reviewed till date.
(2 of 3) [CW-189/2022]
Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, learned counsel submitted that
the respondents are required to review the order of suspension
periodically and prays that the respondents be directed to revisit
the order dated 08.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the
aforesaid prayer and submits that they would review the
suspension order dated 08.01.2021 within a period of four weeks.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (Supra) 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
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
(3 of 3) [CW-189/2022]
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."
In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for
the respective parties as also the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), this Court deems it
just and proper to direct the respondents to review the order dated
08.01.2021 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of
this Court order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/156
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
