Achleshwar Meena S/O Mr. Jata ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4823 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4823 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Achleshwar Meena S/O Mr. Jata ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9952/2022

Achleshwar Meena S/o Mr. Jata Shanker Meena
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Mahi Yadav.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

14/07/2022

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was suspended by the respondents vide order dated

02.02.2022. Learned senior counsel further submits that earlier

the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7355/2022

wherein this court directed the respondents to reconsider the

suspension of the petitioner in the light of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in

2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291. Learned senior counsel

further submits that the respondents have passed the order dated

15.06.2022 whereby the representation submitted by the

petitioner was rejected and the respondents refused to revoke the

suspension order. Learned senior counsel further submits that the

order passed by the respondents is total without application of

mind.

In support of his contention learned senior counsel relied

upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in

(2 of 3) [CW-9952/2022]

the matter of 'Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.662/2022) where in on

25.05.2022, following order was passed:-

"The law declared by the Supreme Court, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India on all Courts and the Tribunals, is that the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee. If on facts it is found that charge sheet has not been filed in criminal case or memorandum of charges, in the event the department decides to hold departmental inquiry, has not been issued within three months, the suspension order would come to an automatic end.

On facts of the present case, it is clear that initially the suspension order was issued on 31.03.2021, declaring deemed suspension w.e.f. 17.03.2021 on account of arrest and detention for more than 48 hours. The same was challenged before this Court and the appellant was allowed to make representation. The representation was rejected on 10.01.2022 i.e. almost after ten months of the deemed suspension. The order nowhere refers to issuance of any memorandum of charges in any departmental enquiry initiated by the department much less filing of charge sheet in the Criminal Court relating to the offences in connection with which deemed suspension had taken place.

On aforesaid factual aspects, which are not in dispute, the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not warrant continuance of the order of suspension.

This extra-ordinary situation was taken into consideration by the Tribunal to stay the order of suspension. All the Courts and Tribunals are bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, we find that the order could not be interfered with only on the ground that it was ex parte or passed 10 months after the suspension order was issued."

(3 of 3) [CW-9952/2022]

Learned senior counsel further submits that more than five

months have been passed after suspension order but neither any

charge-sheet in the criminal case has been filed nor any

Departmental proceedings have been initiated against the

petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Tribunal

is not functioning due to non appointment of the Judicial Member.